Case Name: Marianne Caprice GILBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-03
Citations: 430 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 06-70403
Parties: Marianne Caprice GILBERT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
Marianne Caprice GILBERT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-70403.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 3, 2011.
Marianne Caprice Gilbert, Visalia, CA, pro se.
Bethany B. Hauser, Esquire, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Marianne Caprice Gilbert appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision upholding the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f) from joint liability for income tax for tax year 1995. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court's decision as to whether the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying equitable relief under § 6015(f). See Fargo v. Comm'r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Washington, 157 F.3d 630, 642 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in denying Gilbert equitable innocent spouse relief where several factors weighed against granting relief. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f); Rev. Proc.2003-61 § 4.03 (providing nonexclusive list of factors to be considered when determining whether to grant equitable relief under § 6015(f)).
Gilbert's discrimination argument is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.