Case Name: Gene Kimmerly SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-17
Citations: 218 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 06-35067
Parties: Gene Kimmerly SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
Gene Kimmerly SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-35067.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007 .
Filed Jan. 17, 2007.
Gene Kimmerly Smith, Canyonville, OR, pro se.
John A. Nolet, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gene Kimmerly Smith appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking relief from taxes and penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Imperial Plan, Inc. v. United States, 95 F.3d 25, 26 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Smith failed to meet the jurisdictional prerequisites for filing a tax refund action, Thomas v. United States, 755 F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir.1985), because Smith failed to allege actual payment of the assessed taxes and penalties, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 75, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958).
Moreover, the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Smith's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (prohibiting actions for declaratory judgment in federal tax cases); 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (prohibiting injunctions against any and all acts necessary or incidental to the collection of taxes); Soko-low v. United States, 169 F.3d 663, 664-65 (9th Cir.1999).
Smith's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.