FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WADE VINCENT SHANG, No. 09-71761
Petitioner, Tax Ct. No. 20910-06
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges.
Wade Vincent Shang appeals pro se from the tax court’s summary judgment
upholding deficiencies and penalties sought by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue for tax years 1996, 1998, and 1999. We have jurisdiction under 26
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, and therefore denies Shang’s request. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642
(9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The tax court properly granted summary judgment because Shang failed to
raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the appropriateness of the tax
deficiencies and penalties levied against him. See Tax Ct. R. 90(c) (requests for
admission to which a taxpayer untimely responds are deemed admitted); Smith v.
Comm’r, 800 F.2d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming based on admissions under
Tax Court Rule 90(c)). The district court also properly concluded that, in light of
Shang’s prior criminal tax fraud conviction for 1996 and 1998, collateral estoppel
barred him from denying liability for civil fraud. See McQuillion v.
Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004) (describing elements of
collateral estoppel).
Shang’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider whether the tax court erred by entering admissions
against Shang or granting summary judgment sua sponte because Shang does not
address these issues on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.
1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-71761