Ruth Scherfenberg v. United States

Good Law
978 F.2d 716·1992 WL 295204·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 34630
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 16, 199292-15022California467 words

Opinion

Opinion

978 F.2d 716 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ruth SCHERFENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-15022. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 13, 1992. * Decided Oct. 16, 1992. Before BEEZER, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ruth Scherfenberg appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States in her 28 U.S.C. § 2410 quiet title action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and affirm. 3 Scherfenberg raises several contentions in her opening brief, all of which lack merit. First, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") agents were within their authority to prepare substitute returns for and collect taxes from Scherfenberg. See 26 U.S.C. § 6301 ; 26 C.F.R.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.