Opinion
No. 08-75060.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
July 25, 2011.
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Tax Ct. No. 17500-07L.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Marc Pretscher appeals pro se from the Tax Court's summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") to proceed with its collection action. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm'r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the Commissioner because Pretscher failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the proposed collection action for tax years 2001 through 2004 should not proceed. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir. 1992).
Pretscher's contention that he was improperly denied a face-to-face collection due process hearing is unavailing because "[a] CDP hearing may, but is not required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting. . . ." 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(d)(2) (Q A D6).
The record does not support Pretscher's contention that the Tax Court considered evidence outside the administrative record.
Pretscher's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.