GARY LOHSE V. CIR, No. 19-71546 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY R. LOHSE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-71546 Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tax Ct. No. 11487-17 MEMORANDUM * COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Gary R. Lohse appeals pro se the Tax Court’s order dismissing for failure to prosecute his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of a tax deficiency for the 2014 tax year. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Noli v. Comm’r, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lohse’s action for failure to prosecute because Lohse refused to stipulate to facts as required by Tax Ct. R. 91(a)(1), failed to contest any specific adjustments in the Commissioner’s notice of deficiency, and failed to submit any evidence of his income or deductions for the 2014 tax year. See Tax Ct. R. 123 (authorizing the Tax Court to dismiss a case “[f]or failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient”); Larsen v. Comm’r, 765 F.2d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming the Tax Court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute where the taxpayer refused to stipulate as required by Rule 91). We reject as unsupported by the record Lohse’s contention that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Lohse’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-71546
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
