JACKSON v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Brent JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Decided: March 10, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Brent Jackson, Pro Se Joan I. Oppenheimer, Rachel Ida Wollitzer, Esquire, 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
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 2011 tax year. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Grimes v. Comm'r, 806 F.2d 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. T.C.R. 36(b)(4); Urban v. Comm'r, 964 F.2d 888, 889-890 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the requirements of the Internal Revenue Manual are “not mandatory”); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that “[t]he delegation of authority down the chain of command, from the Secretary, to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to local IRS employees constitutes a valid delegation by the Secretary to the Commissioner, and a redelegation by the Commissioner to the delegated officers and employees”); see also United States v. Hanson, 2 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that a natural born citizen of a state is not subject to the tax code); 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”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Jackson's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as moot. Jackson's motion to correct his address and the case caption (Docket Entry No. 11) is granted in part to update his current mailing address on file with the court but denied in all other respects. Jackson's request for an evidentiary hearing, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.