FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMA ENTERPRISES, INC, No. 11-72954
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 23168-10X
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 4, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District
Judge.***
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Sidney H. Stein, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
AMA Enterprises, Inc. (“AMA”) appeals from the Tax Court’s dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction. AMA filed a petition in the Tax Court under Internal Revenue
Code § 7428, challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s revocation of AMA’s §
501(c)(3) status. The Tax Court held that AMA had not satisfied § 7428(b)(3),
which requires that an organization file a § 7428 petition within ninety-one days of
the Service mailing an adverse-determination letter. Although AMA did file a
petition within the ninety-one day period, its corporate “powers, rights and
privileges” were suspended under California law at the time of the filing. The Tax
Court therefore determined that AMA did not have the capacity to engage in
litigation at the time, as required by Tax Court Rule 60. The court also held that
the subsequent revival of AMA’s corporate powers after the ninety-one day period
did not retroactively satisfy § 7428(b)(3). See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v.
Comm’r, 114 T.C. 268 (2000), aff’d, 22 F. App’x. 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (mem).
We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We affirm the dismissal for
the reasons stated by the Tax Court.
AFFIRMED.
2