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

‘( ’ Cr ·
` UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS l"
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANNY R. LANG, N0. 04-17291
D.C. N0. CV-02-02640-VAM
Plaintiff-counter-defendant -
Appellant,
v. _ JUDGMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the 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 of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFF IRMED. A
Filed and entered 08/05/05 _
’é§$q{Ex‘?&*E¥¤Ea;pN
2,1,6** CI £—E9H**‘¥ F15 .
s 2
Case 2:02—cv¥02640—VAI\/I Document 42 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 1 of 3

_ . ¤ · __ g . L
¤ I FILED
Nor Fon PUBLICATION AUG 05 2005
can-nv A. carrrsnsou cuznx
I UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 0-5- 000RT 0F APP590-5
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
i LANNY R. LANG, No. 04-17291
Plaintiff—counter-defendant - D.C. N0. CV-02-02640-VAM
Appellant, _ _ _ N
v. MEMORANDUM"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellee. C
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona .
Virginia A. Mathis, Magistrate Judge,** Presiding
Submitted August 1, 2005*** .
Before: (TSCANNLAIN, CALLAI-IAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
`” This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited
y to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
M The parties consented in writing to proceed before the magistrate
judge.
M The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:02-cv-02640—VAI\/I Document 42 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 2 of 3

Lanny R. Lang appeals pro se the district eourt’s summary judgment in
favor of the United States in Lang’s action seeking a refund of money paid against c
an assessment against him pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 to recover the trust fund
recovery penalty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo, Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam),
and we affirm.
_ _ 7 l _ in iLang’s sole contention at appeal is thatthe ilnteriial Revenue Servicels- in 3- if in
("IRS") assessment is invalid because the Form 4340 designated the fourth quarter
of 1992 as the last of a series of quarters for which he was responsible, yet an IRS _
Appeals Officer later found him not responsible for that quarter. This contention
is unavailing as an assessment is not invalid simply because a taxpayer is later
found not responsible for one of the quarters listed in the notice of assessment.
See Purcell v. United States, 1 F.3d 932, 940-41 (9th Cir. 1993) (concmding that
reference to last period for which Trust Fund Taxes were owed does not limit
liability toonly the lastperiod referenced). c c r c or rr c r ·
AFFIRMED.
I sreg gnti ’
2 tt
Case 2:02-cv-02640—VAI\/I Document 42 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02640-VAM

Document 42

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02640-VAM

Document 42

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02640-VAM

Document 42

Filed 10/06/2005

Page 3 of 3