Case Name: William A. KURNIK; Nancy E. Kurnik, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 135 F. App'x 945
Docket Number: No. 04-72990
Parties: William A. KURNIK; Nancy E. Kurnik, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 332
Pages: 945–946

Head Matter:
William A. KURNIK; Nancy E. Kurnik, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-72990.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 22, 2005.
William A. Kurnik, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Nancy E. Kurnik, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Charles S. Casazza, Gary R. Alen, Esq., Bruce Ellisen, Esq., Sara Ann Ketchum, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William and Nancy Kurnik appeal pro se the Tax Court's order granting partial summary judgment and ruling that the collection action against them may proceed. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly found that the Kurniks' tax liabilities had not been discharged in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B).
The Tax Court properly considered the 4340 Forms in determining whether the Kurniks were given proper notices of assessment. See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 539-40 (9th Cir.1992). Kurniks' contention that they did not receive the notices did not preclude summary judgment. See Hansen, 7 F.3d at 138. Moreover, the Kurniks do not dispute that they received other notices of levy and these notices were sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement. See Hughes, 953 F.2d at 536.
The Kurniks' remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.