UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MARK ANDRES GREEN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 14-9002 

(T.C. No. 3931-12 L) 

(United States Tax Court) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Mark Andres Green, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of a Tax Court 

decision granting summary judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging 

the imposition of a federal tax lien on his property for a deficiency arising out of the 

2010 tax year. We summarily affirm the decision of the Tax Court. 

Green filed a joint return with his wife for the 2010 tax year specifying an 

amount due of $34,828. After applying a $728 credit and assessing interest and a 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 17, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

penalty totaling $509.57, the Commissioner sent the Greens a notice of balance due 

and demand for payment. When they failed to pay, a lien arose in favor of the United 

States and attached to their property under 26 U.S.C. § 6321. The Commissioner 

filed a notice of tax lien with the county clerk and then issued a notice of federal tax 

lien filing to the Greens, informing them of their right to a collection due process 

(CDP) hearing, which they timely requested. Before the hearing, the settlement 

officer told the Greens that if they intended to challenge the tax liability reported on 

their 2010 return, they should file an amended return. The settlement officer also 

requested the Greens provide information regarding any estimated tax payments for 

current tax year liabilities and a plan regarding payment of their 2010 tax liability. 

The Greens provided neither an amended return nor the requested information. 

Following the CDP hearing, the settlement officer verified that the 

Commissioner had followed all required procedures: an assessment based on the 

Greens’ return, notice and demand for payment of the assessed amount, and notice of 

tax lien filing after nonpayment of the assessment. Although Green had objected to 

the assessment, the settlement officer found his objection groundless because the 

assessment was based on Green’s own tax return and Green failed to file an amended 

tax return showing error in the original. Green had also inaptly complained of a levy 

on his retirement account based on deficiencies from prior tax years, which the 

settlement officer explained was irrelevant to the validity of the 2010 lien. 

Green sought review of the settlement officer’s decision in the Tax Court, 

objecting to both the tax liability assessment and the settlement officer’s verification 
3 

of procedural regularity regarding imposition of the resulting lien. The Tax Court 

rejected the former objection as unsubstantiated: 

 A taxpayer [does] not properly raise an underlying tax liability if the 

taxpayer failed to present the settlement officer with any evidence 

regarding the liability after being given a reasonable amount of time to do 

so. During the CDP hearing, [Green] disagreed with the assessment. When 

[the settlement officer] invited [him] to file an amended 2010 return, he did 

not. Indeed [he] has yet to file an amended return reporting and 

substantiating a change from his self-reported return. Thus, while [he] was 

entitled to challenge the underlying tax liability, he failed to do so. 

R. doc. 25, at 4-5 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). As for the 

regularity of the procedures culminating in the 2010 lien, the Tax Court recounted the 

proper assessment, notice and demand for payment, notice of tax lien filing, and CDP 

hearing afforded Green. Id. at 6-7. The Tax Court further explained that “[a]lthough 

[Green] claimed a desire to file an offer in compromise on the basis of doubt as to 

collectability, he failed to submit requested financial information” and therefore “it 

was not an abuse of discretion for [the settlement officer] to sustain the [notice of 

lien filing] when no collection alternatives or financial information were offered.” 

Id. at 7. Finally, the Tax Court noted that Green “asserts various unintelligible and 

nonsensical positions and cites irrelevant legal authorities or erroneous legal 

arguments that are commonly raised by those seeking to protest Federal tax laws in 

general” and concluded that he had failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material 

fact calling into question the procedural or substantive bases for the lien at issue. Id. 

On appeal, Green fails to demonstrate any error in the Tax Court’s decision. 

His briefing is devoted to attacking assessment and collection activities for tax 
4 

liabilities not at issue here,1

 and to advancing meritless tax-protestor positions of the 

sort alluded to by the Tax Court. 

The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

 1

 His overriding objection concerns the failure to follow requirements for 

preparing a substitute return for a non-filing taxpayer under 26 U.S.C. § 6020. But 

for the 2010 tax year at issue, the Commissioner’s reliance on Green’s own tax 

return, pursuant to id. § 6201(a)(1), obviated the need to prepare a substitute return.