Case Name: Luke D. BRUGNARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 667 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 14-70325
Parties: Luke D. BRUGNARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Luke D. BRUGNARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-70325
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 23, 2016
Luke D. Brugnara, Pro Se
Marion E.M. Erickson, Attorney, Michael J. Haungs, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Luke D. Brugnara appeals pro se from the Tax Court's summary judgment for the Internal Revenue Service regarding his federal income tax liabilities for various tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Taproot Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Comm'r, 679 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment as to tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008 because Brugnara failed to raise properly the underlying tax liability in a collection due process ("CDP") hearing. See Giamelli v. Comm'r, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007) (when a taxpayer disagrees with a notice of determination, the taxpayer may ask the Tax Court to consider the issues that were properly raised in the CDP hearing); Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-l(f)(2) Q & A F3 ("An issue is not properly raised if the taxpayer fails to request consideration of the issue by Appeals, or if consideration is requested but the taxpayer fails to present to Appeals any evidence with respect to that issue after being given a reasonable opportunity to present such evidence.").
We reject as unsupported by the record Brugnara's contention that he did not receive the notice of determination.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.