Case Name: Kevin J. MIRCH; Marie Claire Mirch, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-19
Citations: 604 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: Nos. 13-70312
Parties: Kevin J. MIRCH; Marie Claire Mirch, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
Kevin J. MIRCH; Marie Claire Mirch, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 13-70312.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 19, 2015.
Kevin J. Mirch, San Diego, NV, pro se.
Marie Claire Mirch, Esquire, Mirch Law Firm LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.
Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Attorneys Kevin J. and Marie Claire Mirch appeal from the Tax Court's order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's notice of deficiency for the 2004 tax year. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Meruelo v. Comm'r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the Mirches did not file a timely petition for redetermi-nation. See Elings v. Comm'r, 324 F.3d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir.2003) ("The' tax court has jurisdiction only if two requirements are met: (1) the IRS issued a valid notice of deficiency, and (2) the petitioner filed a timely petition.").
The notice of deficiency was sent by certified mail to the Mirches' last known address, and they do not challenge the content of the notice. Thus, contrary to the Mirches' contentions, there was a valid notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; see also Scar v. Comm'r, 814 F.2d 1363, 1366-70 (9th Cir.1987) (discussing requirements for valid notice of deficiency).
We reject the Mirches' contentions that the Tax Court was required to evaluate the validity of any extension of time to assess tax.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.