MARK BLOMMER V. CIR, No. 20-73394 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK ANTHONY BLOMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-73394 Tax Ct. No. 469-20 MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Mark Anthony Blommer appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for the 2004-2006 and 2009-2012 tax years. 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 * 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). Cir. 2006). We affirm. The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Blommer’s petition because the petition was untimely. See Scar v. Comm’r, 814 F.3d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987) (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) (90-day period for petitioning the Tax Court commences on the date of mailing the notice of deficiency). Blommer’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 30) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 20-73394

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.