John R. Penta, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States Internal Revenue Service; Robert Rubin,secretary, of the Treasury; Margaret Milner Richardson,commissioner; Michael Bigelow, Regional Director; Mark D.cox, District Director; K.d. Matson, Chief, Automatedcollection Branch; A.j. Krisco, District Examiner; Dan W.kitterell, Agent; Arizona Department of Revenue; Haroldscott, Director; Reanae Shepherd, Agent, Defendants-appellees, 119 F.3d 6 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 119 F.3d 6 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted July 14, 1997. **Decided July 18, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

John R. Penta appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his Amended R.I.C.O. Complaint for Injunctive Relief. We affirm. The district court properly concluded Penta is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to require the Treasury Department to repay Penta's withheld taxes, nor may he bring a RICO claim against the government.

The district court also properly rejected Penta's frivolous contention that he is not liable for federal income taxes because he is not a United States citizen but is rather a private citizen who derives his existence by his private intellectual property.1  See United States v. Nelson ( In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989); Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Olson v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

 1

We reject Penta's claims that he was improperly denied a hearing in district court and that the district court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law

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.