Danoff

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Danoff, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Danoff filed a complaint seeking a refund of income taxes in the amount of $22,382, which he asserted he overpaid in connection with his 1996 federal income tax return. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Cement Masons Health & Welfare Trust Fund for No. Calif. v. Stone, 197 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that because Danoff did not file his claim for a tax refund within statutory three-year period, the refund claim was untimely under 26 U.S.C. § 6511 (b). The district court therefore correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over DanofPs tax refund action. See Imperial Plan, Inc. v. United States, 95 F.3d 25, 26 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where taxpayer failed to file a timely administrative tax refund claim under section 6511); Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360 , 1364 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that § 6511(b)(2)(A) is jurisdictional).

Danoff contends that the IRS should be equitably estopped…