Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Richard E. George appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction against the IRS, the California Franchise Tax Board and various state and federal defendants in his action challenging the collection of state and federal taxes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a

MEMORANDUM ** Crystal Ann Poole appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the government for assessing federal income taxes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura County, 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir.2002), we affirm. We affirm the

MEMORANDUM ** Blake Wingle appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider its prior order dismissing his civil rights action. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Because Wingle failed to file his motion for reconsideration within 10 days after entry of the final order, the motion for reconsideration did not toll

545 F.3d 727 (2008) Kazim Z. ACAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Service, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-16820. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 15, 2008. Filed September 23, 2008. Kazim Z. Acar, pro se. *728 Richard Farber, Patrick Urda (argued

MEMORANDUM ** Lori Kahre appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely her petition to quash three administrative summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to third-party record keepers in connection with Kahre’s tax liabilities for 2000, 2001 and 2002. The government moves to dismiss the appeal as moot and to remand with instructions that the district court vacate its

MEMORANDUM ** Synergy Staffing appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service on Synergy’s claim that it is entitled to a tax refund for *167the year 1997. For the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not ap

MEMORANDUM ** Michael E. Vierow appeals pro se the tax court’s decision sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (“Commissioner”) collection action related to tax years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the tax court’s conclusions of law and review for clear error findings of fact. Baizer v. Comm’r, 204 F.3d 1231, 1233-34

OPINION WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge. The question in this case is whether an IRS claim for delinquent taxes secured outside of bankruptcy by a lien on a debt- or’s interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan is secured in bankruptcy “by a hen on property in which the bankruptcy estate has an interest” under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a). This question has

HUG, Circuit Judge. Appellant Peter Coons was demoted by his employer, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). He alleges that he was demoted in violation of his rights under the Rehabilitation Act for discrimination because of a disability and for requesting reasonable accommodations relating to his disability. Finally, Coons alleges that the IRS demoted him in retaliation for maki

GRABER, Circuit Judge. William Barstow, Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of MarkAir, Inc. (MarkAir), seeks to subordinate the proceeds of a judicial lien securing taxes owed to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Trustee relies on § 724(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 724(b), which subordinates tax liens to the claims of certain priority unsecured cred

PER CURIAM: Patrick Catalano, an attorney, leased three boats to a corporation organized under subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1361-79. He was the sole shareholder and used the boats to entertain clients. The corporation deducted the lease payments on its federal corporate income tax returns, so that the deductions reduced the corp

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a taxpayer is entitled to an income tax deduction for expenses incurred to place a proposition affecting his working conditions on a local ballot. I Robert Geary, a veteran officer of the San Francisco Police Department, appeals a judgment from the Tax Court upholding the Commiss

OPINION FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Peter Billingsley, a minor who has a substantial income from his work in the entertainment industry, appeals the Tax Court’s denial of his motion under Tax Court Rule 123(c) 1 to set aside the Tax Court’s dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. The mot

CARROLL, District Judge: Paccar, Inc., appeals from a decision of the United States Tax Court, 85 T.C. 754 (1985), upholding the determination of deficiencies assessed by the Commissioner for the tax years 1975 through 1977. The primary issue is whether Paccar may claim an inventory loss resulting from its transfer of equipment parts to a third party. We affirm.

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine the extent of loss protection a taxpayer may build into a business transaction so as to eliminate any realistic possibility of actual loss from an unprofitable deal, yet remain “at risk” and entitled to a deduction for invested amounts under Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. § 465. This issue arose in 1980, when taxpayer Robert L.

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: The appellant James A. Picard (“Picard”) challenges the Tax Court’s ruling that his disability retirement benefits are taxable under Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”) § 61(a). The Tax Court held that the induction of Picard’s disability-retirement benefits on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his date of hire constituted a determination of benefits

ORDER The petition for rehearing is granted. This court’s opinion, Landreth v. Commissioner, 845 F.2d 828 (9th Cir.1988), filed on April 26, 1988, is hereby vacated. OPINION WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this case is whether the Landreths (taxpayers) can dedu

PELL, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment ordering the Internal Revenue Service to disclose eight redacted documents to the plaintiff under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1976) (FOIA). The question presented is whether the District Court erred in holding that the documents must be released to the plaintiff after t

NORRIS, Circuit Judge: I The principal issue in this case is whether the Landreths (taxpayers) can deduct losses from commodity futures “straddles,” 1 incurred in 1978, if their primary motive for entering into those straddle transactions was to create tax losses rather than to realize a profit.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 25-4400 (CKK) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 6, 2026) The Plainti