Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
‘ POR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER CAHILL, No. 04-l 7526
DC. No. CV·O3—02574-PHX-
Plaintiff- Appellant, SMM
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JUDGMENT
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript ofthe Record from the
` United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this (
Court, that the judgment ofthe said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AF FIRIVIED.
Filed and entered l2/I2/05
A more _ Q
CAT}-ly A. C`,F\·VIl;1_·}5KJz`*J
Clerk of Court
ATTEST
_ FEE E 8 EGGS {
A nl?\,·'b.t<; Mmmm!
Case 2:O3—cv—O2574—SI\/II\/I Document 23 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 1 of 3

W V ij
_ ` 0 Nor Fon PUBLICATION FI L E D
` UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2 2005
CATHY A. cATtEasoN, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT u.s. count OF APPEALS
l ROGER CAHILL, No. 04-17526 j
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV-03—02574-PHX-
SMM
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM* _
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding 1 _
n Submitted December 5, 2005**
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Roger Cahill appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing for lackof
subject matter jurisdiction his action against the United States seeking judicial
P review of a tax liability determination. l
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
M The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). `_
Case 2:O3—cv—O2574—SI\/II\/I Document 23 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 2 of 3

t · y
4 v · ` The district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because the
Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the underlying income tax liabilities.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(l); 26 CFR § 301.6330-l(f)(2)(Q-F3) (directing taxpayer
to tax court when seeking judicial review of matters involving income taxes).
Cahill’s contention that the district court had jurisdiction over his action
because he challenged only procedural irregularities in his Collection Due Process .
hearing and not the underlying tax liabilities is unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
it 3 tl? 2 cb 1%%% \
la 4
_ .t__ lt tt at
2p \»
Case 2:O3—cv—O2574—SI\/II\/I Document 23 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02574-SMM

Document 23

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02574-SMM

Document 23

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02574-SMM

Document 23

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 3 of 3