MCADAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-22No. No. 20-72611

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Tax Court's denial of McAdams's post-judgment motion for reconsideration because he failed to present any valid basis for relief and did not timely appeal the underlying judgment.

Russell McAdams appealed the Tax Court's decision to reject his motion asking the court to reconsider its prior judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed whether the Tax Court had acted unreasonably in denying this motion. Because McAdams provided no legitimate grounds to support his request for reconsideration, the Tax Court properly denied it.

The court also declined to address McAdams's complaints about the original Tax Court decision itself, finding that he had not filed a timely appeal of that underlying judgment. Tax law requires appeals to be filed within 90 days of the initial decision, and McAdams failed to meet this deadline. The court explained that filing a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time allowed to appeal the original judgment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the Tax Court abused its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration
Whether failure to file a timely notice of appeal bars review of the underlying judgment
Standards for reopening a Tax Court case after final judgment

Procedural posture

McAdams appealed from the Tax Court's order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration, and the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Russell T. McAdams appeals pro se from the Tax Courts order denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review for an abuse of discretion. Parkinson v. Commr, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McAdamss post-judgment motion for reconsideration because McAdams failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See id. (“The Tax Courts denial of a motion for reconsideration will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.”); see also Abatti v. Commr, 859 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988) (a Tax Court cannot reopen a case after a final decision except in the event of fraud on the court or mutual mistake).

We do not consider McAdamss contentions regarding the Tax Courts original decision because McAdams failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to that decision. See 26 U.S.C. § 7483 (notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days of judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(1)(B); Tax Ct. R. 161, 162 (post-judgment motions for reconsideration or to vacate or revise a decision must be filed within 30 days of the decision); Nordvik v. Commr, 67 F.3d 1489, 1493 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[S]uccessive motions asserting the same grounds cannot be tacked together to extend the time for filing an appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.