Joel Joseph v. Cir , 691 F. App'x 866 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 31 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOEL DAVID JOSEPH,                              No. 16-70006
    Petitioner-Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 23968-13
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted May 24, 2017**
    Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
    Circuit Judges.
    Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment
    upholding the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiency
    for the 2010 tax year. We have jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a)(1). We
    *
    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).
    review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 
    310 F.3d 640
    , 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
    The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Joseph failed to
    raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the levy of funds from his
    individual retirement account did not constitute a distribution that is taxable gross
    income. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 408
    (d)(1) (subject to certain exceptions, “any amount
    paid or distributed out of an individual retirement plan shall be included in gross
    income by the payee or distribute . . . .”).
    The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joseph’s motion for
    leave to amend his petition because the proposed amendment would be been futile.
    See Bonin v. Calderon, 
    59 F.3d 815
    , 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment
    can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.”); Kelley v.
    Comm’r, 
    877 F.2d 756
    , 760 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard of review), overruled on
    other grounds by Bufferd v. Comm’r, 
    506 U.S. 523
     (1993).
    We do not consider issues relating to the underlying tax levy that Joseph
    failed to raise in a collection due process hearing. See 
    26 C.F.R. § 301.6330
    –
    1(f)(2) Q & A F3.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                  16-70006