Michael Andrew Bigley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ANDREW BIGLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 14-71160,
14-71161
Tax Ct. Nos. 17529-12L,
17747-12L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from Decisions of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael Andrew Bigley appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary
judgment in his action challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s determination to
proceed with proposed collection actions for tax years 2004, 2005, and 2006. We
have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Miller v.
FILED
DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly determined that the IRS did not abuse its discretion
in sustaining the proposed levy actions because the settlement officer verified that
the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met,
considered issues raised by Bigley at the hearing, and balanced the need to collect
taxes with the intrusiveness any collection action would have on Bigley. See 26
U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider in
making a determination to sustain a proposed levy action); see also Fargo v.
Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir. 2006) (reviewing Commissioner’s actions for
an abuse of discretion). Moreover, the Tax Court properly concluded that Bigley
was not entitled to challenge his underlying tax liability during his Collection Due
Process hearing because he was sent a statutory notice of deficiency. See 26
U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
14-71161 2

-- 2 of 2 --