TP Fails To Abide by Rules, Tossed By The 9th

[The Observer]

JAMES ROBERTSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

Release Date: MAY 24, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

MEMORANDUM/*/

Submitted May 15, 2012/**/

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

James Robertson appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision dismissing for failure to prosecute his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion, Noli v. Comm'r, 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Robertson's petition in light of his failure to respond to its order to show cause or to comply with prior court orders, especially where it had reinstated the action after a previous dismissal and had warned Robertson about the possibility of another dismissal if he failed to respond or comply with the applicable rules. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384-85 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissal was not an abuse of discretion because willful failure to appear, prejudice to defendant, and interference with court's docket outweighed policy favoring resolution of litigation on the merits and imposition of less drastic sanctions); see also Tax Ct. R. 123(a) (dismissal permitted where party fails to proceed as required by court).

We decline to address Robertson's arguments regarding the Tax Court's prejudgment determination that Robertson's petition was frivolous and dilatory. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (after dismissal for failure to prosecute, litigant forfeits right to appeal the merits of interlocutory orders prior to judgment).

Robertson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

*/ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**/ The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[LPC]

Here's the order of dismissal by the Tax Court, for those who might be curious. The gist is:

The Court has reviewed the record in this case and without exception petitioner appears to be questioning the validity of the Federal tax system and his obligation to file a return and pay his Federal income tax liability . Without exception, the arguments that petitioner makes are arguments that this Court and other courts have found to be frivolous . We are also convinced from the arguments petitioner has made to Appeals and based on the documents petitioner has submitted to the Court that petitioner is instituting or maintaining this proceeding primarily, if not exclusively, as a protest against the Federal income tax system and his proceeding in this Court is merely a continuation of petitioner's refusal to acknowledge and satisfy his tax obligations .

We take this opportunity to admonish petitioner that, if he continues to make these type of arguments, he is at risk of the Court imposing a penalty against him under section 6673(a)(1) .