Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01280/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01280-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
Appellee
Eric Onyango
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-1280 September Term, 2015

USTC-27788-11

UTSC-19081-12L

Filed On: March 22, 2016

Eric Onyango,

Appellant

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service,

Appellee

------------------------------

Consolidated with 14-1288

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT 

BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

Upon consideration of the record from the United States Tax Court and on the

briefs filed by the parties, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j), it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Tax Court’s orders of June 24, 2014, and

September 8, 2014, be affirmed. “The court must give great deference to the Tax

Court’s determination pertaining to the credibility of witnesses.” 106 Ltd. v. C.I.R., 684

F.3d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Pasternak v. C.I.R., 900 F.2d 893, 900 (6th Cir.

1993)). Appellant has not shown that the Tax Court clearly erred in discrediting

portions of his trial testimony and finding that he “received” a notice of deficiency as that

term is used in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). Because he received the notice of deficiency

and did not file a timely challenge to that notice, appellant was barred from challenging

his underlying tax liability. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B).

Nor was the Tax Court’s denial of appellant’s motion for reconsideration an

abuse of discretion. See Ark Initiative v. Tidwell, 749 F.3d 1071, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

(“This court’s review of the denial of reconsideration is typically limited to abuse of

discretion . . . .”). Appellant has not demonstrated that his medical records could not

have been obtained prior to trial, and his failure to exercise reasonable diligence in

attempting to obtain them does not render them “newly discovered evidence.” See Bain

USCA Case #14-1280 Document #1605013 Filed: 03/22/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-1280 September Term, 2015

v. MJJ Productions, Inc., 751 F.3d 642, 647-48 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that evidence

that could have been discovered prior to trial with “reasonable diligence” is not “newly

discovered”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

USCA Case #14-1280 Document #1605013 Filed: 03/22/2016 Page 2 of 2