
    Steven Jay STANWYCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-73136
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 04, 2016
    Steven Jay Stanwyck, Santa Monica, CA, Pro Se.
    Jacob Earl Christensen, Robert R. Di Trolio, John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Gilbert Steven Rothen-berg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bridget Maria Rowan, Attorney, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Jay Stanwyck, a former attorney, appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order denying innocent spouse relief, and sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection action for the years 1991, 1997, and 1998. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Because the Internal Revenue Service has written off the unpaid balances of Stanwyck’s 1991, 1997, and 1998 tax liabilities, and has released the related federal tax lien, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Di Giorgio v. Lee (In re Di Giorgio), 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To qualify for adjudication in federal court, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Greene-Thapedi v. Comm’r, 126 T.C. 1, 8 (2006) (“Inasmuch as the proposed levy is moot, petitioner has no independent basis . to challenge the existence or amount of her underlying tax liability in this proceeding.”).

We take judicial notice of the documents attached to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, filed on March 18, 2014. Stanwyck’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on November 20, 2013, is denied as moot.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     