Rita Barrett v. Cir , 695 F. App'x 273 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 14 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RITA BARRETT,                                   No. 16-73031
    Petitioner-Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 26207-15
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted August 9, 2017**
    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.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    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.
    2                                    16-73031
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-73031

Citation Numbers: 695 F. App'x 273

Filed Date: 8/14/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023