Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daryl L. MAASSEN Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Appellee
    No. 16-1922
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 7, 2016
    Filed: December 12, 2016
    
      Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr., Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. Law Office, Huntsville, AL, for Appellant
    Daryl L. Maassen, Pro Se
    Janet A. Bradley, Bruce R. Ellisen, Gil-. bert Steven Rothenberg, Senior Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Appellee
    Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Daryl Maassen appeals the tax court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his action seeking to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from assessing or collecting income tax deficiencies for 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. In his petition, he claimed that the IRS had not mailed him notices of deficiency for these four years. In response to the IRS’s motion to dismiss, Maassen argued that two incomplete U.S. Postal Service Forms 3877 were insufficient proof that the notices had been mailed to him, and for the first time on appeal, he further asserts that these forms were unauthenticated evidence that the tax court erred in considering. We affirm.

As an initial matter, we decline- to consider Maassen’s assertion that the tax court improperly relied on unauthenticated exhibits. See Ames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.3d 763, 770 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing general rule against considering issues first raised on appeal). We further conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Ark Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Comm’r, 114 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir. 1997) (providing for de novo review of tax court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). The IRS produced evidence that was sufficient to show that it mailed separate and properly completed notices of deficiency in 2004. See Cropper v. Comm’r, 826 F.3d 1280, 1285-86 (10th Cir. 2016) (applying “‘otherwise sufficient’” evidence standard). Maassen’s filing of his petition in 2015 therefore was untimely. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (setting forth time limits for filing of petition for redetermination); Foster v. Comm’r, 445 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (holding that, if a taxpayer fails to file petition within statutory period, the tax court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Michael B. Thornton, Chief Judge, United States Tax Court.