Daryl Maassen v. CIR

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Steven M. Colloton and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED) [4478419] [16-1922]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1922
___________________________
Daryl L. Maassen
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee
____________
Appeal from The United States Tax Court
____________
Submitted: December 7, 2016
Filed: December 12, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Daryl Maassen appeals the tax court’s1 dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his
action seeking to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from assessing or
collecting income tax deficiencies for 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. In his petition, he
claimed that the IRS had not mailed him notices of deficiency for these four years.
1

The Honorable Michael B. Thornton, Chief Judge, United States Tax Court.

Appellate Case: 16-1922

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 4478419

In response to the IRS’s motion to dismiss, Maassen argued that two incomplete U.S.
Postal Service Forms 3877 were insufficient proof that the notices had been mailed
to him, and for the first time on appeal, he further asserts that these forms were
unauthenticated evidence that the tax court erred in considering. We affirm.
As an initial matter, we decline to consider Maassen’s assertion that the tax
court improperly relied on unauthenticated exhibits. See Ames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co., 760 F.3d 763, 770 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing general rule against considering
issues first raised on appeal). We further conclude that the dismissal was proper. See
Ark. Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Comm’r, 114 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir. 1997) (providing for de
novo review of tax court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). The IRS produced
evidence that was sufficient to show that it mailed separate and properly completed
notices of deficiency in 2004. See Cropper v. Comm’r, 826 F.3d 1280, 1285-86 (10th
Cir. 2016) (applying “‘otherwise sufficient’” evidence standard). Maassen’s filing of
his petition in 2015 therefore was untimely. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (setting forth
time limits for filing of petition for redetermination); Foster v. Comm’r, 445 F.2d 799,
800 (10th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (holding that, if a taxpayer fails to file petition
within statutory period, the tax court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1922

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 4478419