Parkinson v. C.I.R.

Decision Date04 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 79-7605,79-7605
Citation647 F.2d 875
Parties81-1 USTC P 9415 Detsel J. PARKINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Arthur P. Tranakos, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellant.

George L. Hastings, Atty., Washington, D. C., argued, for respondent-appellee; M. Carr Ferguson and Michael L. Paup, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Petition to Review a Decision of The Tax Court of the United States.

Before WALLACE and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and HALBERT *, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In 1975 Parkinson filed income tax returns for the years 1972, 1973, and 1974. The returns did not reflect any income for the years in question, but did include numerous constitutional challenges to the income tax system. The Commissioner reconstructed Parkinson's tax liabilities from bank records and other third party records and assessed deficiencies and penalties for the three years in question. Parkinson, without the assistance of counsel, petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination. The Commissioner then moved for summary judgment pursuant to Tax Court Rule 121(b). Following the hearing on the Commissioner's motion, which Parkinson did not attend, the Tax Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact presented and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Parkinson then retained counsel and filed a motion for reconsideration which the Tax Court denied. Parkinson argues that the Tax Court erred in granting the Commissioner summary judgment on the petition for redetermination and in denying the motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule 121(d), which is derived from Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), a party must do more than rest on his pleadings to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment. The resisting party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. Parkinson's conclusory characterization of the Commissioner's calculations as "arbitrary estimates," and his allusion to evidence, which he was unwilling to disclose before trial, were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded the Commissioner's determinations.

The Tax Court's denial of a motion for reconsideration will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Nor-Cal Adjusters v. Commissioner, 503 F.2d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1974). The Tax Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Petzoldt v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • March 29, 1989
    ...as arbitrary is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness. Rapp v. Commissioner, supra, citing Parkinson v. Commissioner, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981). Respondent here has introduced admissible, substantive evidence clearly linking petitioner to the sale of marijuana an......
  • Coplin v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 17, 1991
    ...The government enjoys a presumption of administrative regularity with respect to the acts of its officials. Parkinson v. Commissioner, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir.1981). In order for taxpayers to overcome this presumption, they must come forward with evidence tending to show that the IRS did......
  • Rowlee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • June 15, 1983
    ...affd. in an unpublished order (9th Cir., Dec. 18, 1980); Parkinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-319, affd. per curiam 647 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1981). 4. The thrust of petitioner's argument concerning bias is that the Court repeatedly ruled against him. He states: “During ‘trial’ responden......
  • Nunes v. Ashcroft
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 3, 2003
    ...orders in habeas corpus proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Parkinson v. Commissioner, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT