From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castleton v. C.I.R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 21, 2006
188 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted June 12, 2006.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Brandt N. Castleton, Othello, WA, pro se.

Lynne L. Glasser, Clerk, Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Regina S. Moriarty, Esq., Eileen J. O'Connor, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.


Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court. Tax Ct. No. 6109-03.

Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Brandt N. Castleton appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, following a bench trial, upholding deficiencies for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 7482. On appeal, Castleton raises the following contentions: "Acts of Fraud, of actions taken without Jurisdiction, and Violation of enumerated protected individual rights by John T. Leahy III of IRS, in conspiracy with Catherine L. Campbell (Tax Court Bar # CC033), and by her complicit statements and actions, Judge L. Paige Marvel. (Title 42 USC sec 1986, 1985, and 1983). Also Judicial Prejudice, and Practicing Law from the bench." These contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Castleton v. C.I.R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 21, 2006
188 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

Castleton v. C.I.R.

Case Details

Full title:Brandt N. CASTLETON, Petitioner--Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2006

Citations

188 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2006)

Citing Cases

Hollingsworth v. Commissioner

Both documents fail the requirements of section 170(f)(8) because they fail to state whether the foundation…

Friedman v. Commissioner

We have previously held that statement necessary for a charitable contribution deduction. SeeKendrix v.…