Menu
Tax Notes logo

Individual's Claim Was Raised in Prior Tax Court Proceeding

AUG. 14, 2017

Barrett, Rita v. Commissioner

DATED AUG. 14, 2017
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    Rita Barrett v. Commissioner
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 16-73031
  • Judge
    Per Curiam
  • Parallel Citation
    695 Fed. Appx. 273
    2017-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,313
    120 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2017-5486
    2017 WL 3475148
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    2017-66092
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2017 TNT 157-22

Barrett, Rita v. Commissioner

RITA BARRETT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Tax Ct. No. 26207-15

MEMORANDUM1

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted August 9, 20172

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Rita Barrett appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment in her action challenging the disallowance of her request for an abatement of interest for the tax year 1976. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of res judicata because Barrett raised the same claim regarding abatement of interest for the 1976 tax year in a prior tax court proceeding that was decided on the merits. See Baker v. IRS (In re Baker), 74 F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Under th[e] doctrine [of res judicata], a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.”). Contrary to Barrett’s contentions, Barrett failed to identify any new evidence or fraudulent conduct that would preclude the application of res judicata.

We reject as meritless Barrett’s contention that her case was not adequately considered as a result of the assignment to a new judge.

Because we affirm on the basis of res judicata, we do not consider the merits of Barrett’s claims.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

END FOOTNOTES

DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    Rita Barrett v. Commissioner
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 16-73031
  • Judge
    Per Curiam
  • Parallel Citation
    695 Fed. Appx. 273
    2017-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,313
    120 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2017-5486
    2017 WL 3475148
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    2017-66092
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2017 TNT 157-22
Copy RID