
    John Henry RYSKAMP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-73059
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    John Henry Ryskamp, Berkeley, CA, Pro Se.
    Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Gilbert Steven Rothen-berg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Henry Ryskamp appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of tax deficiency for tax year 2010 for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), We review for an abuse of discretion, Noli v. Comm’r, 860 F.2d 1621, 1627 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ryskamp’s petition for failure to prosecute because Ryskamp failed to appear for trial twice and failed to offer any excuse for his absence. See id. (noting “dismissal for failure properly to prosecute will normally arise where a party fails to appear at trial”); Edelson v. Comm’r, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in dismissing petition where taxpayer failed to produce records, failed to enter into a stipulation of facts, and failed to appear for trial); see also T.C. R. 123(b) (Tax Court may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a petitioner where the petitioner fails to prosecute or proceed as required by the Tax Court), T.C. R. 149(a) (Tax Court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute where the petitioner’s absence from trial is unexcused).

We reject as meritless Ryskamp’s contention that the Tax Court illegally transferred the action to the Appeals Office.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 3 6-3.
     