Gorski v. Internal Revenue Service

MEMORANDUM

Jerold M. Gorski, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his tax refund action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. United States v. Peninsula Commc’ns, Inc., 287 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132 , 1135 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gorski failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he is entitled to refunds for tax years 2007, 2008, and 2010. See United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 440 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976) (taxpayer bears burden of proving amount he is entitled to recover).

The district court properly dismissed Gorski’s claims for negligence and accounting for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (a) (taxpayer may bring civil action for damages only for a specific statutory or regulatory violation); Miller v. United States, 66 F.3d 220, 223 (9th Cir. 1995) (taxpayer cannot seek damages for improper…