Case Name: AMA ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 11-72954
Parties: AMA ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 455–455

Head Matter:
AMA ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-72954.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
Kenneth Dale Sisco, Esquire, Counsel, Kenneth D. Sisco, Norco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Melissa Briggs, U.S. Department of Justice, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tamara W. Ashford, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan S. Cohen, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Sidney H. Stein, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
AMA Enterprises, Inc. ("AMA") appeals from the Tax Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. AMA filed a petition in the Tax Court under Internal Revenue Code § 7428, challenging the Internal Revenue Service's revocation of AMA's § 501(c)(3) status. The Tax Court held that AMA had not satisfied § 7428(b)(3), which requires that an organization file a § 7428 petition within ninety-one days of the Service mailing an adverse-determination letter. Although AMA did file a petition within the ninety-one day period, its corporate "powers, rights and privileges" were suspended under California law at the time of the filing. The Tax Court therefore determined that AMA did not have the capacity to engage in litigation at the time, as required by Tax Court Rule 60. The court also held that the subsequent revival of AMA's corporate powers after the ninety-one day period did not retroactively satisfy § 7428(b)(3). See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Comm'r, 114 T.C. 268 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir.2001) (mem).
We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We affirm the dismissal for the reasons stated by the Tax Court.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.