ROBERT TALBOT V. CIR, No. 17-70826 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT TALBOT, No. Petitioner-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70826 Tax Ct. No. 26598-14L v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Robert Talbot appeals from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, permitting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to proceed with an action to collect Talbot’s federal income tax liability for tax years 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo * 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). conclusions of law and for clear error questions of fact. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The Tax Court properly determined that the Commissioner sent a final notice of deficiency to Talbot’s last known address for each tax year in question. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212(b)(1) (a notice of deficiency addressed to the taxpayer’s last known address suffices for purposes of notice); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that Postal Form 3877 is highly probative and is sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made). We reject as unsupported by the record Talbot’s contention that the Tax Court failed to consider his testimony. We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 17-70826

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.