Court Opinion

ID: 9363279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:33.82216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.404496
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 16 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENT JACKSON,                                  No. 21-71236

                Petitioner-Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 2429-20

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                           Appeal from a Decision of the
                             United States Tax Court

                          Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before:      WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Brent Jackson appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for

failure to state a claim his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue’s notice of tax deficiency for the 2012 tax year. We have jurisdiction

under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

      The Tax Court properly dismissed Jackson’s petition for failure to state a

claim because Jackson failed to set forth a clear and concise assignment of error or

any facts demonstrating error in the Commissioner’s determinations. Tax Ct. R.

34(b)(4); United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980) (explaining

that “the Sixteenth Amendment is broad enough to grant Congress the power to

collect an income tax regardless of the source of the taxpayer’s income”).

      In his opening brief, Jackson fails to address the Tax Court’s imposition of a

$10,000 penalty for filing a frivolous petition and has therefore waived his

challenge to the Tax Court’s order with respect to that issue. See Indep. Towers of

Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider

any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-

Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by

argument on a pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Jackson’s request for the return of his tax court filing fee, set forth in the

opening brief, is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     21-71236