Court Opinion

ID: 9408176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:00:49.420242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.413638
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN K. BUNTON; KAREN A.                       No. 22-70139
BUNTON,
                                                Tax Ct. No. 20438-19L
                Petitioners-Appellants,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                           Appeal from a Decision of the
                             United States Tax Court

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Brian K. Bunton and Karen A. Bunton appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s

decision sustaining a proposed levy to collect unpaid 2016 tax liabilities. We have

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
conclusions of law and for clear error its factual findings. DJB Holding Corp. v.

Comm’r, 803 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

      The Tax Court properly determined that the Buntons were precluded from

challenging their underlying liability because they were deemed to have received

the notices of deficiency, and they failed to raise the issue of liability at a

collection due process (“CDP”) hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (stating

that taxpayer may challenge underlying tax liability at hearing regarding

subsequent levy “if the [taxpayer] did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency

for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute [it]”);

26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(f)(2) (stating that Tax Court may consider only issues that

were properly raised and supported with evidence during CDP hearing). The Tax

Court properly deemed the notices received because the proof of certified mailing

to the Buntons’ last known address gives rise to a presumption that they received

the notices. See Baldwin v. United States, 921 F.3d 836, 840 (9th Cir. 2019).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     22-70139