Brian K. Bunton; Karen A. Bunton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN K. BUNTON; KAREN A.
BUNTON,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-70139
Tax Ct. No. 20438-19L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Brian K. Bunton and Karen A. Bunton appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s
decision sustaining a proposed levy to collect unpaid 2016 tax liabilities. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 11 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-70139
conclusions of law and for clear error its factual findings. DJB Holding Corp. v.
Comm’r, 803 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly determined that the Buntons were precluded from
challenging their underlying liability because they were deemed to have received
the notices of deficiency, and they failed to raise the issue of liability at a
collection due process (“CDP”) hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (stating
that taxpayer may challenge underlying tax liability at hearing regarding
subsequent levy “if the [taxpayer] did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency
for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute [it]”);
26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(f)(2) (stating that Tax Court may consider only issues that
were properly raised and supported with evidence during CDP hearing). The Tax
Court properly deemed the notices received because the proof of certified mailing
to the Buntons’ last known address gives rise to a presumption that they received
the notices. See Baldwin v. United States, 921 F.3d 836, 840 (9th Cir. 2019).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --