GHANI v. C.I.R

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 09-9005.

Attorney(S)

Deborah Ghani, Arvada, CO, for Petitioner-Appellant. John A. Dicicco, Steven W. Parks, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Clarissa C. Potter, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Judges

Stephen Hale Anderson

Acts

Internal Revenue Code — Procedure And Administration — Assessment — Deficiency Procedures In The Case Of Income, Estate, Gift, And Certain Excise Taxes — Restrictions Applicable To Deficiencies; Petition To Tax Court
Internal Revenue Code — Procedure And Administration — Collection — Seizure Of Property For Collection Of Taxes — Due Process For Collections — Notice And Opportunity For Hearing Before Levy

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

Deborah GHANI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Deborah Ghani, proceeding pro se, appeals the Tax Court's order: (1) granting the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; (2) dismissing her case on the ground that no notice of determination was sent to Ms. Ghani; and (3) denying Ms. Ghani's motion to restrain assessment. We affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Ghani was never issued a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice of Determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6213, 6330; Abrams v. Comm'r, 814 F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (holding that a pre-filing notification letter from the Internal Revenue Service was not a Notice of Deficiency and therefore, the Tax Court had no jurisdiction over the taxpayer's petition); see also Tuka v. Comm'r, 348 Fed.Appx. 819, 820 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished) ("[T]he lock-in letter . . . does not constitute a notice of determination."); Davis v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2008-238, 2008 WL 4703706, at *7 (2008) ("[A] lock-in letter is not a levy.").

We have examined all of Ms. Ghani's arguments and find them unpersuasive.

The motion to file reply brief out of time is granted, and the panel has taken the brief into consideration.

AFFIRMED.

Deborah GHANI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

Comments