William F. Holdner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM F. HOLDNER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-74197
Tax Ct. No. 3817-13
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted November 18, 2015 **
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment
permitting the Internal Revenue Service to collect on his federal income tax
liabilities for years 2004 to 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 1 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74197
(9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly sustained the collection action because Holdner was
precluded from challenging the validity of the underlying tax assessments, as the
matter had been resolved in prior litigation. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6330(c)(2)(B),
6330(c)(4)(A)(i) (limiting issues a taxpayer may challenge at a Collection Due
Process hearing); Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 598-99 (1948) (discussing the
application of res judicata principles in tax litigation); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-
Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment is a final
judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes); Baker v. IRS (In re Baker), 74
F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (res judicata precludes relitigation of
issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action; “once a taxpayer’s
liability for a particular year is litigated, ‘a judgment on the merits is res judicata as
to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year.’”
(citation omitted)).
We do not consider Holdner’s contentions concerning the propriety of the
judgment entered in his prior tax case, which were addressed in a prior appeal. See
Holdner v. Comm’r, 483 F. App’x 383 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --