Bassett v. Internal Revenue ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    July 1, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ___________________


    No. 93-1654




    PHILIP PAUL BASSETT,

    Petitioner, Appellant,

    v.

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

    Respondent, Appellee.


    __________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT


    [Hon. Stephen J. Swift, U.S. Tax Court Judge]
    ____________________

    ___________________

    Before

    Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ___________________

    Philip Paul Bassett on brief pro se.
    ___________________
    Michael L. Paup, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Gary R.
    _______________ _______
    Allen, Gilbert S. Rothenberg and Steven W. Parks on brief for
    _____ ______________________ _______________
    appellee.



    __________________

    __________________





















    Per Curiam. Philip Paul Bassett seeks review of a
    __________

    Tax Court decision sustaining an Internal Revenue Service

    (IRS) determination that Bassett had underpaid his taxes and

    was liable for certain penalties as a result. The Tax Court

    decision entered on January 15, 1993, but Bassett did not

    file his notice of appeal until June 11, 1993, well after the

    appeal period had expired. See 26 U.S.C. 7483 ("Review of
    ___

    a decision of the Tax Court shall be obtained by filing a

    notice of appeal with the clerk of the Tax Court within 90

    days after the decision of the Tax Court is entered."). In

    response to our order to show cause why his late appeal

    should proceed, Bassett alleged that he had not been informed

    of his appellate rights or obligations by either the IRS or

    the Tax Court. We permitted the appeal to proceed, reserving

    the question whether we had jurisdiction over the untimely

    appeal.

    We now dismiss Bassett's appeal for lack of

    jurisdiction. See Vibro Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner,
    ___ _______________________ ____________

    312 F.2d 253, 254 (2d Cir. 1963) (untimely filing of appeal

    deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over an

    appeal). The Tax Court's failure to notify Bassett of his

    appeal rights does not excuse the untimely appeal so that we

    may assume jurisdiction over the appeal. See Wilder v.
    ___ ______

    Chairman of the Central Classification Board, 926 F.2d 367,
    _____________________________________________

    371 n.2 (4th Cir.) (the court rejected a pro se appellant's



    -2-















    argument that the district court's failure to inform him of

    the proper procedures for seeking an appeal was grounds for

    permitting his untimely appeal to proceed), cert. denied, 112
    ____________

    S. Ct. 109 (1991); Mayfield v. United States Parole
    ________ ______________________

    Commission, 647 F.2d 1053, 1055 n.5 (10th Cir. 1981) (the
    __________

    court suggested that, because the time requirements for

    filing an appeal are jurisdictional, they would not be

    affected by the district court's failure to heed the court of

    appeals' previous suggestion that pro se litigants be

    notified of their appeal rights and duties). The same would

    be true of any failure by the IRS to inform Bassett of his

    appellate rights, assuming, that is, that the IRS had such an

    obligation.

    Appeal dismissed.
    _________________

























    -3-







Document Info

Docket Number: 93-1654

Filed Date: 7/1/1994

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015