Klingenberg v. Commissioner

Ninth Circuit

Klingenberg v. Commissioner

670 F. App'x 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 2016

Docket13-70506

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 670 F. App'x 510 (Klingenberg 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

Klingenberg v. Commissioner, 670 F. App'x 510 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Eldo Klingenberg appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s judgment upholding Klin-genberg’s federal income tax liability for tax years 1991 through 1997, and 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of fact. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Klingenberg was sent notices of deficiency for all of the tax years in question and that Klingenberg did not produce any evidence contradicting the certified mail log showing that the notices were mailed. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330 (c)(2)(B) (at a hearing before a levy, a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute it); § 6212(b)(1) (a notice of deficiency addressed to the taxpayer’s last known address suffices for purposes of notice); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (an official record of mailing is highly probative and sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made).

Klingenberg’s contentions that the Tax Court improperly conducted a trial de novo and considered evidence outside of the administrative record are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM *

Eldo Klingenberg appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s judgment upholding Klin-genberg’s federal income tax liability for tax years 1991 through 1997, and 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of fact. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Klingenberg was sent notices of deficiency for all of the tax years in question and that Klingenberg did not produce any evidence contradicting the certified mail log showing that the notices were mailed. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330 (c)(2)(B) (at a hearing before a levy, a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute it); § 6212(b)(1) (a notice of deficiency addressed to the taxpayer’s last known address suffices for purposes of notice); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (an official record of mailing is highly probative and sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made).

Klingenberg’s contentions that the Tax Court improperly conducted a trial de novo and considered evidence outside of the administrative record are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F. App'x 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klingenberg-v-commissioner-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack