Smith v. United States Internal Revenue Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM S. SMITH, Jr., also named as No. 16-15820
William S Smith; SUE K. SMITH,
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-08155-SPL
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, named as Internal Revenue
Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
William S. Smith, Jr., and Sue K. Smith appeal pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in their tax refund action. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Reynoso v. United States, 692 F.3d 973,
*
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).
977 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Smiths
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they are entitled to a
refund for the 2009 tax year. See United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 440 (1976)
(taxpayer bears burden of proving amount he or she is entitled to recover);
Vukasovich, Inc. v. Comm’r, 790 F.2d 1409, 1414-15 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining
that Congress intended to “to tax all gains except those specifically exempted”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the
computerized records of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). See Hughes v.
United States, 953 F.2d 531, 539-40 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of
review and holding that IRS documents certified under seal are self-authenticating
under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1)).
We reject as without merit the Smiths’ argument that the district court erred
in relying on the IRS’s statement of facts supporting summary judgment.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendant’s motion for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15820