Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0637-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David DE HAAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-71394.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 4, 2011.
    David De Haas, pro se.
    John A. Dicicco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, John Schumann, Nathan J. Hochman, Esquire, Richard T. Morrison, Esquire, Clarissa C. Potter, Esquire, Andrea R. Tebbets, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. DiTrolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David De Haas appeals pro se from the tax court’s order granting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s motion to dismiss De Haas’s petition contesting a Notice of Determination concerning income tax liabilities for tax years 2002 and 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion a tax court’s decision to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution. Edelson v. Comm’r, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The tax court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing De Haas’s petition for failure to prosecute because De Haas failed to appear at trial, despite several warnings that failure to appear could result in dismissal of the petition. See id. (holding that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the taxpayers’ petitions for failure to prosecute where the taxpayers had, among other things, failed to appear for trial).

De Haas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.