Case ID: f-appx_684/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrew M. HUNTER; Angela A. Hunter, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-70308
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Paul W. Jones, Attorney, Hale & Wood, PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioners-Appellants
    Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Attorney, Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Gilbert Steven Rothen-berg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andrew M. Hunter and Angela A. Hunter appeal from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their action related to their tax liability for tax years 2012 and 2013. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo, Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because the petition was not filed within 90 days of the notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (establishing a 90-day requirement for appealing a notice of deficiency); 26 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(2) (timely mailing treated as timely filing “only if ... deposited in the mail in the United States in an envelope ... properly addressed to the agency ... ”); Gorospe, 451 F.3d at 968 (the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is determined by Title 26 of the United States Code).

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