Opinion
No. 07-73446.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
March 6, 2009.
Appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court Diane L. Kroupa, Judge, Presiding Tax Ct. No. 9832-06L.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Leonard Magness appeals pro se from the tax court's summary judgment permitting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") to proceed with an action to collect his federal income tax liabilities for 2001 and 2002. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the tax court's legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of fact. Charlotte's Office Boutique v. Comm'r, 425 F.3d 1203, 1211 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Miller v. Comm'r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The tax court properly determined that Magness was precluded from challenging the tax liabilities for 2001 and 2002 because he had notice of the deficiencies but failed to petition the tax court for a deficiency hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (permitting challenge to the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer "did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability"); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that Postal Form 3877 is highly probative and is sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made).
Magness's contention that he was improperly denied a face-to-face collection due process ("CDP") hearing is unavailing because "[a] CDP hearing may, but is not required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting." 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D6). Further, Magness failed to respond to requests to provide detailed documentation as to the issues he wished to raise at the hearing and failed to raise a valid challenge to respondent's proposed levy. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D7) (stating that a taxpayer who presents relevant, non-frivolous arguments in the CDP hearing request will ordinarily be offered the opportunity for a face-to face conference).
Magness's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.