Court Opinion

ID: 9408174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:00:48.78759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.372099
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

JASON GOLDITCH,                                 No.    22-70133

                Petitioner-Appellant,           IRS No. 7726-20L

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              United States Tax Court

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

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

      Jason Golditch appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment

sustaining a proposed levy to collect his unpaid 2011 and 2012 tax liabilities. 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). We affirm.

      *
             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).
      The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Golditch

received the notices of deficiency and federal tax lien but failed to raise the issue of

his liability in a collection due process (“CDP”) hearing, and therefore was not

entitled to challenge his underlying tax liabilities. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B)

(stating that taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability “if the [taxpayer]

did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not

otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability”); 26 C.F.R.

§ 301.6330-1(f)(2) (stating that Tax Court may consider only issues that were

raised properly and supported with evidence in the CDP hearing). The proof of

certified mailing in the record gives rise to a presumption that Golditch received

the notices of deficiency, which he has not rebutted. See Baldwin v. United States,

921 F.3d 836, 840 (9th Cir. 2019); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th

Cir. 1984) (observing that United States Postal Service Form 3877 is highly

probative and sufficient to establish that a notice and assessment was properly

made).

      We reject as meritless Golditch’s contention that a tax return is a

prerequisite to the assessment and collection of taxes. See Roat v. Comm’r,

847 F.2d 1379, 1381-82 (9th Cir. 1988).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-70133