Moody v. Commissioner , 474 F. App'x 552 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES E. MOODY, Nos. 11-72122
11-72125
Petitioner - Appellant,
Tax Ct. Nos. 1319-10L
v. 1060-10L
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL MEMORANDUM *
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, James E. Moody appeals pro se from the Tax
Court’s summary judgments permitting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(“Commissioner”) to proceed with actions to collect his federal income tax liability
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for tax years 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7482(a). We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Miller v. Comm’r,
310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly determined that Moody was precluded from
challenging his tax liability for all tax years at issue because he received notices of
the deficiency but failed to petition the tax court for a deficiency hearing. See 26
U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (permitting challenge to 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”). Contrary to
his contention on appeal, Moody failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether he did not receive the notice of deficiency because he did not submit
any evidence contradicting the evidence of mailing submitted by the
Commissioner. See Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 430 (1932) (a properly
mailed letter carries with it a presumption of receipt).
Moody’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-72122