Court Opinion

ID: 2962685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:00:37.305394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:00.292348
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 1, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-1654                                             PHILIP PAUL BASSETT,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                  __________________                       APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                              [Hon. Stephen J. Swift, U.S. Tax Court Judge]                                            ____________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ___________________               Philip Paul Bassett on brief pro se.               ___________________               Michael L. Paup, Acting  Assistant Attorney General, Gary R.               _______________                                      _______          Allen, Gilbert S.  Rothenberg and  Steven W. Parks  on brief  for          _____  ______________________      _______________          appellee.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.  Philip Paul Bassett  seeks review of a                      __________            Tax Court  decision  sustaining an  Internal Revenue  Service            (IRS) determination that Bassett  had underpaid his taxes and            was liable for certain penalties as a result.  The  Tax Court            decision entered  on January  15, 1993,  but Bassett  did not            file his notice of appeal until June 11, 1993, well after the            appeal period had expired.  See 26 U.S.C.   7483 ("Review  of                                        ___            a decision of  the Tax  Court shall be  obtained by filing  a            notice  of appeal with  the clerk of the  Tax Court within 90            days after the decision  of the Tax Court is  entered.").  In            response  to  our order  to show  cause  why his  late appeal            should proceed, Bassett alleged that he had not been informed            of his appellate rights  or obligations by either the  IRS or            the Tax Court.  We permitted the appeal to proceed, reserving            the question  whether we  had jurisdiction over  the untimely            appeal.                      We  now  dismiss  Bassett's  appeal  for  lack   of            jurisdiction.  See  Vibro Manufacturing Co.  v. Commissioner,                           ___  _______________________     ____________            312 F.2d 253, 254  (2d Cir. 1963) (untimely filing  of appeal            deprives  the  court  of  appeals  of  jurisdiction  over  an            appeal).   The Tax Court's  failure to notify  Bassett of his            appeal  rights does not excuse the untimely appeal so that we            may  assume jurisdiction  over  the appeal.    See Wilder  v.                                                           ___ ______            Chairman of  the Central Classification Board,  926 F.2d 367,            _____________________________________________            371 n.2 (4th Cir.)  (the court rejected a pro  se appellant's                                         -2-            argument that the district  court's failure to inform  him of            the proper procedures  for seeking an appeal was  grounds for            permitting his untimely appeal to proceed), cert. denied, 112                                                        ____________            S.  Ct.   109  (1991);  Mayfield  v.   United  States  Parole                                    ________       ______________________            Commission, 647  F.2d 1053,  1055 n.5  (10th Cir.  1981) (the            __________            court  suggested  that,  because the  time  requirements  for            filing  an  appeal  are  jurisdictional, they  would  not  be            affected by the district court's failure to heed the court of            appeals'  previous  suggestion  that  pro  se   litigants  be            notified  of their appeal rights and duties).  The same would            be true  of any failure by  the IRS to inform  Bassett of his            appellate rights, assuming, that is, that the IRS had such an            obligation.                          Appeal dismissed.                       _________________                                         -3-