
    MARCO A. FRAUSTO, INC.; Marco A. Frausto, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-72638
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Marco A. Frausto, Inc., Pro Se
    Marco A. Frausto, Pro Se
    Joan I. Oppenheimer, John Schumann, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P, 34(a)(2). Appellants’ request for oral argument, set forth in their reply brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco A. Frausto, Inc. and Marco A. Frausto and appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s notices of deficiency for tax years 2008 through 2011. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), We review de novo. Correia v. Comm’r, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

We dismiss this appeal as to Marco A. Frausto, Inc. because it is a corporation that must appear in court through an attorney. See Licht v. Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a non-attorney does not have authority to appear as an attorney for others).

Dismissal of Frausto’s petition was proper because Frausto did not set forth a clear and concise assignment of error, or any facts demonstrating error, in the Commissioner’s determinations of his individual tax liabilities. See T.C. R. 34(b)(4) (A petition must contain “[c]lear and concise assignments of each and every error ... committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency ... [and] .,. [a]ny issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded.”); Grimes v. Comm’r, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standing of review and affirming dismissal where a petitioner failed to present “any justiciable error in his petition for redeter-mination”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellants’ motion' for leave to correct an error by the Tax Court (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     