Phyllis Carr v. Irs ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 25 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PHYLLIS CARR,                                   No.    21-17100
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00744-WHO
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
    SERVICE; CHARLES P. RETTIG, in his
    official capacity as Commissioner of Internal
    Revenue; MIN JIE MA; UNITED STATES
    OF AMERICA,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 18, 2023**
    Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Phyllis Carr appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in her action under
    
    26 U.S.C. § 7422
     seeking a tax refund from the IRS for tax year 2012. We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Big Sandy Rancheria
    Enterprises v. Bonta, 
    1 F.4th 710
    , 719 (9th Cir. 2021) (dismissal for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction); Hamby v. Hammond, 
    821 F.3d 1085
    , 1090 (9th Cir. 2016)
    (cross motions for summary judgment). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because
    Carr failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she timely filed
    a formal administrative refund claim or adequately provided the IRS notice of an
    informal claim. See Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 
    492 F.3d 1084
    , 1088-89
    (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that a district court is divested of jurisdiction if taxpayer
    fails to file a formal administrative refund claim); United States v. Kales, 
    314 U.S. 186
    , 194 (1941) (stating that notice of an informal claim must fairly advise the IRS
    “of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim”).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     21-17100