NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
DONALD J. TAYLOR , a n individual ) No. 16-35775 and c itiz e n of the Stat e of ) W a shington, ) D.C . No. 4:16-c v-05023-SM J ) Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt, ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) v. ) ) C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

N AL ) R EVENUE, ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lle e . ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July

10, 2018 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd NGUYEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUL 24 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Dona ld J. Ta y l or, a ta x re turn pre p are r, a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for la c k of jurisdic tion of his a c tion a ga i nst the C om m issione r of Inte rna l R e ve nue for a b a te m e nt of pe na ltie s a s se sse d a ga inst him and for re fund of a

m ounts pa id towa rd those pe na ltie s. W e a ffirm
. Tay lor pre pa

re d tax re turns tha

t we re file d by

va rious ta xpa y e rs, a nd a fte r an inve stiga tion, theUnite d State s Inte rna l R e ve nue Se rvic e (“ IR S” ) a sse sse d taxre turn-pre pa

re r pe n a ltie s a ga inst him
. Se e 26 U.S.C . § 6694(a ), (b). In ge ne ra l, distric t c o urts do not ha

ve subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion ove r a c tions for re fund of
am ounts pa id on a

pe na lty a sse s sm e nt unle ss the a sse ssm e n t ha s be e n pa id in full. Se e Thomas v . Unite d

State s , 755 F.2d 728, 729 (9th C ir. 1985); se e also Flora v
. Unite d State s , 357 U.S. 63, 72–76, 78 S. Ct. 1079, 1085–86, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1165 (1958), aff’d on re h’g , 362 U.S. 145, 176–77, 80 S. C t. 630, 647, 4 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1960). Ta

y lor did not pa

y any of the pe na ltie s in full; on the c ontra ry , he dire c te d that his pa ym e nts be a lloc a te d t o a

pa ym e nt of fifte e n pe rc e nt on e a c h se pa ra te pe na lty
. Se e B uffalow

v . Unite d State s , 109 F.3d 570, 574 (9th C ir. 1997). Ne ve rthe le ss, Ta

y lor a sse rts tha

t he c am e within the e xc e ption provide d by 26 U.S.C . § 6694(c ). W e disa g re e . That e xc e ption doe s c onfe r distric t c ourt jurisdic tion whe n a tax re turn
2pre p are r ha s pa id a t le a st fifte e n pe rc e nt of a pe na lty , 1 if he c o m m e nc e s his re fund
a c tion within thirty

da y s a fte r the e arlie r of: the IR S’ de nia l of his c l a im for re fund, or “ t he e xpira tion of 6 m onths a fte r the da y on whic h

he file d the c la im for
re fund.” 2 Ta

y lor did not file

within those

tim e lim its. He sugge s ts tha t § 6694(c ) doe s not re quire that he do so. Howe ve r, we have a lre a dy c o nstrue d

a diffe re nt
se c t ion whic h, with trivial e xc e ptions not re l e va nt he re , c onta ins pre c ise ly the sa m e la ngua ge . 3 Se e 26 U.S.C . § 6703(c )(1), (2). In c onside ring tha t se c tion we he ld that “ onc e a pla intiff m isse s the six-m onth-plus-30-da y de a dline , the distric t c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion ove r the re fund suit unle ss the ta xpa y e r pay s the e ntire pe n a lty first.” K orobk in v . Unite d State

s , 988 F.2d 975, 976 (9th C ir. 1993) (pe r c uriam );
se e a lso Thomas , 755 F.2d a t 729–30. The use of the sa m e la ngua ge in § 6694(c )
and § 6703(c ) strongly

sugge s ts tha

t we should a

pply the sa m e inte rpre tation to the
se c t ions. Se e N

orthc r oss v . Bd. of Educ
. , 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S. Ct . 2201, 2202,

1 26 U.S.C . § 6694(c )(1). 2 Id. a t (2). 3 That e ve n inc l ude s the se c tion he a dings to the e xte nt tha t c onside ring the m would be a

prope r a id to inte rpre tation. Se e 26 U.S.C . § 7806(b); se ealso Fla. De p’t of Re v e nuev . Pic c adilly C afe te rias, Inc
. , 554 U.S. 33, 47, 128 S. C t. 2326, 2336, 171 L. Ed. 2d 203 (2008); Bhd. of R.R. Trainme n v . Balt. &

Ohio R.R. C

o. , 331 U.S. 519, 528–29, 67 S. Ct. 1387, 1392, 91 L. Ed. 1646 (1947). 337 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1973) (pe r c uriam ). In a

ny e ve nt, we se e no ba sis for holding tha t the § 6694(c ) la

ngua ge should bec onstrue d to m e an som e t hing diffe re n t from

the § 6703(c ) la

ngua ge . M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion4 whe n it de c line d to he ar Tay l or’ s ne wly

m inte d a rgum e nt tha

t he c ould found jurisdiction on the divisibility

e xc e ption. 5 Tha

t a rgum e nt wa s first pre se nte d to the distric t c ourt a t
ora l argum e nt on the m otion to dism iss, a nd c ontra dic te d the fifte e n pe rc e nt ba sis
argum e nt upon whic h the c o m pla int a nd brie fing 6 re ste d. AFFIR M ED.

4 Se e Pre minge r v . Pe ak

e , 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th C ir. 2008); 389 Orange St. Partne rs v . Arnold

, 179 F.3d 656, 665–66 (9th C ir. 1999); se e also Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ).
5 Se e K o r obk in , 988 F.2d a

t 976–77. 6 Se e E.D. W a sh. R . 7.1(b), (d); se e also Zamani v . C arne s , 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th C i r. 2007). 4