Opinion
No. 08-72818.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 5, 2010.
Dan Pickell, Burlingame, CA, pro se.
Sara Ann Ketchum, Richard T. Morrison, Esquire, Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory, Steven W. Parks, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court. Tax Ct. No. 14400-07.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Dan Pickell appeals pro se from the tax court's order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition for relief from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's attempts to collect his federal income tax liabilities for tax years 2000 through 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Gorospe v. Comm'r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The tax court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Pickell was never issued a "Notice of Determination" regarding the levies. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d). Contrary to Pickell's arguments, the tax court properly determined that the Commissioner sent a final notice of intent to levy to Pickell's last known address. See United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commissioner's evidence of compliance with official mail procedures is sufficient to establish that notices were properly made).
Pickell's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.