Case Name: Eugene J. KERNAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 944
Docket Number: No. 15-70574
Parties: Eugene J. KERNAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 944–944

Head Matter:
Eugene J. KERNAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-70574
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 21, 2016
Eugene J. Kernan, Pro Se
Robert Joel Branman, Esquire, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, 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: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, Keman’s requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eugene J. Kernan appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision, following a bench trial, confirming the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies and additions for tax years 2001 through 2006. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court's legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm'r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly sustained the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies and additions to Kernan's taxes for tax years 2001 through 2006. See 26 U.S.C. § 1, 6012, 6651(a), 6654.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by striking Kernan's briefs because they exceeded the length limitations imposed by the court. See Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. Comm'r, 34 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.