Case Name: David IMAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 299 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 07-72113
Parties: David IMAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
David IMAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-72113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
David Imam, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Eileen J. O’Connor, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Imam appeals pro se from the tax court's order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition challenging the notice of deficiency for the tax year 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Gorospe v. Comm'r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
The tax court properly dismissed Imam's petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Imam failed to file his petition ninety days from the mailing of the notice. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a); Correia v. Comm'r, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ("The timely filing of a petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.