Case Name: Rita BARRETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-14
Citations: 695 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 16-73031
Parties: Rita BARRETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges'.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Rita BARRETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-73031
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 14, 2017
Rita Barrett, Pro Se
Sherra Wong, Julie Ciamporcero Avetta, Attorneys, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rita Barrett appeals pro se from the Tax Court's summary judgment in her action challenging the disallowance of her request for an abatement of interest for the tax year 1976. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm'r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of res judicata because Barrett raised the same claim regarding abatement of interest for the 1976 tax year in a prior tax court proceeding that was decided on the merits. See Baker v. IRS (In re Baker), 74 F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Under th[e] doctrine [of res judicata], a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relit-igating issues that were or could have been raised in that action."). Contrary to Barrett's contentions, Barrett failed to identify any new evidence or fraudulent conduct that would preclude the application of res judicata.
We reject as meritless Barrett's contention that her case was not adequately considered as a result of the assignment to a new judge.
Because we affirm on the basis of res judicata, we do not consider the merits of Barrett's claims.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent' except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.