Case Name: Jimmy Kit LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-22
Citations: 667 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 14-72340
Parties: Jimmy Kit LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Jimmy Kit LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-72340
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 22, 2016
Jimmy Kit Lee, San Jose, CA, Pro Se.
Richard Caldarone, Attorney, Michael J. Haungs, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Jimmy Kit Lee appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision dismissing for failure to prosecute properly his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination of tax deficiencies for tax year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion, Noli v. Comm'r, 860 F.2d 1621, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lee's petition for failure to prosecute properly because Lee failed to comply with the Tax Court's Standing Pretrial Order requiring the parties to exchange documents at least fourteen days before trial, and Lee refused to answer the Tax Court's questions regarding his business. See T.C. R. 128(b) (Tax Court may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a petitioner where the petitioner fails to prosecute or proceed as required by the Tax Court).
We reject as meritless Lee's contentions that the Internal Revenue Service does not have authority to levy taxes, and the doeu-ments he produced were not a "document dump."
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.