Case Name: Arthur SARKISSIAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-26
Citations: 604 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 13-70121
Parties: Arthur SARKISSIAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
Arthur SARKISSIAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-70121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 26, 2015.
Steven Ray Mather, Lydia Bottome Tu-ranehik, Esquire, Kajan Mather and Bárish, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Robert R. di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Schumann, Teresa E. McLaughlin, 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
Arthur Sarkissian appeals from the Tax Court's order dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax Court's factual findings, Williams v. Comm'r, 935 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Sarkissian actually received the notice of deficiency. See Erhard v. Comm'r, 87 F.3d 273, 274 (9th Cir.1996) (notice of deficiency is valid if "the taxpayer actually receives the notice, regardless of where the IRS mails the notice"); see also Sparkman v. Comm'r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2007) ("[T]he Tax Court . may disregard uncontradicted testimony by a taxpayer where it finds that testimony lacking in credibility." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Sarkissian's arguments concerning due process and the IRS's alleged intentional failure to send notices to Sark-issian's tax preparer and attorney.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.