Case Name: William F. HOLDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-01
Citations: 623 F. App'x 892
Docket Number: No. 13-74197
Parties: William F. HOLDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 892–893

Head Matter:
William F. HOLDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-74197.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Dec. 1, 2015.
William F. Holdner, Portland, OR, pro se.
Patricia McDonald Bowman, Trial, Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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
William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the Tax Court's summary judgment permitting the Internal Revenue Service to collect on his federal income tax liabilities for years 2004 to 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Sollberger v. Comm'r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly sustained the collection action because Holdner was precluded from challenging the validity of the underlying tax assessments, as the matter had been resolved in prior litigation. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B), 6330(e)(4)(A)(i) (limiting issues a taxpayer may challenge at a Collection Due Process hearing); Comm'r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 598-99, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948) (discussing the application of res judicata principles in tax litigation); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir.2005). (summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes); Baker v. IRS (In re Baker), 74 F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (res judicata precludes relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action; "once a taxpayer's liability for a particular year is litigated, 'a judgment on the merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year.'" (citation omitted)).
We do not consider. Holdner's contentions concerning the propriety of the judgment entered in his prior tax case, which were addressed in a prior appeal. See Holdner v. Comm'r, 483 Fed.Appx. 383 (9th Cir.2012).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.