Brugnara v. Commissioner

Ninth Circuit

Brugnara v. Commissioner

667 F. App'x 250

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket14-70325

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 250 (Brugnara v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brugnara v. Commissioner, 667 F. App'x 250 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brugnara-v-commissioner-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack