ANDY ATIGHI V. CIR, No. 21-71417 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDY ATIGHI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-71417 Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 14501-21 v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Andy Atighi appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for tax years 2010 and 2011. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. * 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). The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Atighi’s claims because Atighi failed to file a timely petition for a redetermination in response to the IRS’s notices of deficiency for the tax years at issue. See Scar v. Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that the Tax Court may exercise its jurisdiction only when the IRS issues a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer files a timely notice for redetermination); Wilson v. Comm’r, 564 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 1977) (stating that the 90-day period for petitioning the Tax Court commences on the date of mailing the notice of deficiency). AFFIRMED. 2 21-71417
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.
