Filed: Mar. 09, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2017
Summary: Hailu Yohannes Awlachew on brief pro se., Richard L. Parker, Michael J. Haungs, Tax Division, Department, of Justice, and Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General, on, brief for appellee.however, does not affect this appeal.tax liability for the 2001 tax year was not based on the AMT.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1580
HAILU YOHANNES AWLACHEW,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Before
Boudin, Lipez and Howard,
Circuit Judges.
Hailu Yohannes Awlachew on brief pro se.
Richard L. Parker, Michael J. Haungs, Tax Division, Department
of Justice, and Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General, on
brief for appellee.
March 9, 2009
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Hailu Yohannes Awlachew
appeals from a Tax Court decision, Awlachew v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo, 2007-365, 2007 WL 4322139 (U.S. Tax
Ct. 2007), which upheld an Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Notice
of Determination dated November 18, 2005. In its Determination,
the IRS concluded that its tax lien based on Awlachew's outstanding
taxes, penalties, and interest for the 2000 and 2001 tax years was
necessary and should remain in full force and effect until
satisfied or unenforceable. After careful review of the record and
the parties' contentions, we affirm because we agree with the Tax
Court that there was no abuse of discretion by the agency.
On appeal, Awlachew primarily objects to the IRS's
decision upholding its tax lien on the ground that the tax laws, as
applied to him, were unfair and imposed a unique hardship, but the
government correctly contends that arguments of this kind cannot
succeed. See, e.g., Speltz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
124 T.C. 165, 176 (U.S. Tax Ct. 2005) ("In many contexts, literal
application of the [alternative minimum tax] has led to a perceived
hardship, but challenges based on equity have been uniformly
rejected.") (citing numerous cases). Furthermore, although
Awlachew asks this court to abate his penalties and interest and to
use his alternative minimum tax (AMT) credit to reduce his
outstanding tax obligations, he fails to present any developed
argument showing that such action by this court is warranted or
-2-
permissible. Hence, we need not consider his claim. United States
v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 60 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting the well-
settled appellate rule that perfunctorily raised claims are deemed
waived).
In addition, Awlachew alleges that the IRS settlement
officer who conducted his collection due process hearing inflexibly
used the agency's uniform national and local expense standards in
determining his monthly living expenses and unreasonably proposed
that he make monthly installment payments of $1,250 to satisfy his
tax debt. In part, Awlachew fails to adequately develop his
argument, thereby waiving appellate consideration, and his argument
is also unpersuasive given his gross monthly income at that time.
Furthermore, the record supports the settlement officer's ultimate
conclusion that Awlachew was "not interested" in entering into an
installment agreement in order to pay his outstanding tax debt.
We note that Congress has recently amended the Internal
Revenue Code by adding 26 U.S.C. § 53(f), which abates certain
unpaid AMT liabilities. See Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008, Pub. L. 110-343, Div. C, Title I, § 103(a),(b), Oct. 3,
2008, 122 Stat. 3863. Such relief as is afforded by § 53(f),
however, does not affect this appeal. As the parties' stipulations
in the Tax Court confirm, Awlachew's tax liability for the 2000 tax
year was attributable only "in part" to his AMT liability, and his
tax liability for the 2001 tax year was not based on the AMT.
Affirmed.
-3-
