Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 2003.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
Page 803.
Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Taxpayers Stephen and Patricia Lindsey appeal pro se the United States Tax Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner"), contesting the Commissioner's determination of tax deficiencies for tax years 1989-1993. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, Talley Indus. Inc. v. Comm'r, 116 F.3d 382, 385 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
The tax court properly granted summary judgment because Form 4340 submitted by the Commissioner is an official document which establishes that tax assessments were made and petitioners have failed to present contrary evidence. See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535-36 (9th Cir.1992).
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the tax court properly exercised jurisdiction over petitioners' case because it has jurisdiction over tax liabilities that originate from unpaid income taxes, regardless of whether the underlying tax liability is in dispute. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330.
Finally, the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply where "a matter [is] subject to a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de novo in a court." See 5 U.S.C. § 554(a)(1). The "Tax Court has as its purpose the redetermination of deficiencies, through a trial on the merits ... [and] [i]t exercises de novo review." See Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore, there was no error in admitting before the Tax Court documents not introduced in the administrative hearing.
AFFIRMED.