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, pro ceeding pro se, petitions fo r review of a Tax Court decision granting summary judgment to th e Commissioner in this action challenging the imposition of a federal tax lien on his pr operty for a deficiency arising out of the 2010 tax year. We summar ily affirm the decision of the Tax Court. Green filed a joint return with his wi fe for the 2010 tax year specifying an amount due of $34,828. Afte r applying a $728 credit and assessing interest and a

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve 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 Court2 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 cl erk 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 heari ng, the settlement officer told the Greens that if they intended to challenge the tax liability reported on their 2010 return, they should file an ame nded return. The settlement officer also requested the Greens provide information re garding any estimated tax payments for current tax year liabilities a nd a plan regarding payment of their 2010 tax liability. The Greens provided neither an amended retu rn nor the requested information. Following the CDP hearing, the set tlement officer ve rified that the Commissioner had followed all required pro cedures: an assessment based on the Greens’ return, notice and demand for paymen t of the assessed amount, and notice of tax lien filing after nonpayment of the as sessment. Although Green had objected to the assessment, the settlem ent officer found his objec tion groundless because the assessment was based on Green’s own tax return and Green failed to file an amended tax return showing error in th e original. Green had also inaptly complained of a levy on his retirement account based on defici encies from prior tax years, which the settlement officer explained was irrelevant to the valid ity 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 verification3 of procedural regularity re garding imposition of the resulting lien. The Tax Court rejected the former objec tion as unsubstantiated: A taxpayer [does] not properly rais e an underlying tax liability if the taxpayer failed to present the settl ement officer with any evidence regarding the liability after being give n a reasonable amount of time to do so. During the CDP heari ng, [Green] disagreed with the assessment. When [the settlement officer] inv ited [him] to file an ame nded 2010 return, he did not. Indeed [he] has yet to file an amended return reporting and substantiating a change from his self-re ported return. Thus, while [he] was entitled to challenge the underlying ta x liability, he failed to do so. R. doc. 25, at 4-5 (citati ons and internal quotation ma rks 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 fu rther 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 s ubmit requested financial info rmation” and therefore “it was not an abuse of discretion for [the se ttlement officer] to su stain the [notice of lien filing] when no collection alternatives or financial in formation were offered.” Id. at 7. Finally, the Tax Court noted that Green “asserts various unintelligible and nonsensical positions and c ites irrelevant legal aut horities or erroneous legal arguments that are commonly ra ised by those seeking to pr otest Federal tax laws in general” and concluded that he had failed to de monstrate 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 a ny error in the Tax Court’s decision. His briefing is devoted to attacking a ssessment and collection activities for tax4 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-fi ling taxpayer under 26 U. S.C. § 6020. But for the 2010 tax year at issue, the Co mmissioner’s reliance on Green’s own tax return, pursuant to id. § 6201(a)(1), obviated the need to prepare a substitu te return.