GARY HARVEY V. CIR, No. 16-73643 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY RAYMOND HARVEY; BERNICE C. HARVEY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-73643 Tax Ct. No. 9526-16 Petitioners-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Gary Raymond Harvey and Bernice C. Harvey appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their petition regarding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection of taxes for tax years 1989-1992, 1994-1999, and 2003-2005. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. * 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). § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the Harveys’ petition because the Harveys did not file it within 90 days of a notice of deficiency or 30 days of a notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (establishing a 90-day requirement for appealing a notice of deficiency); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) (establishing a 30-day requirement for appealing a notice of determination concerning notices of lien or notices of intent to levy); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (the tax court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is defined by Title 26 of the United States Code). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Harveys’ motion for reconsideration because the Harveys did not establish grounds for relief. See Parkinson v. Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (standard of review). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-73643
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.
