Gary Harvey v. Cir

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY RAYMOND HARVEY; BERNICE No. 16-73643
C. HARVEY,
Tax Ct. No. 9526-16
Petitioners-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
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