Luke Brugnara v. Cir , 667 F. App'x 250 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUKE D. BRUGNARA, No. 14-70325
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 10243-12L
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Luke D. Brugnara appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment
for the Internal Revenue Service regarding his federal income tax liabilities for
various tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review
de novo, Taproot Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Comm’r, 679 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2012), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment as to tax years 2006,
2007, and 2008 because Brugnara failed to raise properly the underlying tax
liability in a collection due process (“CDP”) hearing. See Giamelli v. Comm’r, 129
T.C. 107, 115 (2007) (when a taxpayer disagrees with a notice of determination,
the taxpayer may ask the Tax Court to consider the issues that were properly raised
in the CDP hearing); Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(f)(2) Q & A F3 (“An issue is not
properly raised if the taxpayer fails to request consideration of the issue by
Appeals, or if consideration is requested but the taxpayer fails to present to
Appeals any evidence with respect to that issue after being given a reasonable
opportunity to present such evidence.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Brugnara’s contention that he did not
receive the notice of determination.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-70325