Morrisv.Comm. of Internal Revenue

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMay 3, 2011
431 Fed. Appx. 535 (9th Cir. 2011)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Rodriguez v. Comm'r

    …2011-291, 2011 WL 6382704, at *2 n.8; Morris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-65, 2008 WL 704208, at *1,…

  • Enis v. Comm'r

    …2011-291, 2011 WL 6382704, at *2 n.8; Morris v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-65, 2008 WL 704208, at *1,…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 09-70111.

Submitted April 5, 2011.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 3, 2011.

Barry L. Morris, Walnut Creek, CA, pro se.

Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Bruce R. Ellisen, Marion E.M. Erickson, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court. Tax Ct. No. 14487-05.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[fn**] [fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Barry L. Morris, an attorney, appeals pro se from the tax court's order denying his petition for redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies for tax years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion the tax court's decisions regarding the admission of evidence. Hudspeth v. Comm'r, 914 F.2d 1207, 1213 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The tax court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to admit into evidence documents that Morris belatedly produced to the Commissioner, without explanation and in violation of the court's standing pretrial order, after giving Morris several extensions of time to present his case. See Tax Ct. R. 131(b) (unexcused failure to comply with a standing pretrial order may subject a party to sanctions, such as those provided in Tax Ct. R. 104); Tax Ct. R. 104(c)(2) (tax court may issue an order prohibiting a party from introducing designated matters into evidence); see also United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 886 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1981).

Morris's remaining contentions are un-persuasive.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.