Michael Ferrari v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL FERRARI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-70562
Tax Ct. No. 18531-13
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Ferrari appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment
sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection action for the 2007
and 2008 tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We
review de novo, Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012), and
* 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
JAN 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70562
we affirm.
Ferrari was sent statutory notices of deficiency and had an opportunity to
dispute his underlying tax liability prior to his Collection Due Process (“CDP”)
hearing. The Tax Court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment and
sustained the collection action because Ferrari was precluded from challenging the
validity of the underlying tax assessments during his CDP hearing. See 26 U.S.C.
§§ 6320(c), 6330(c)(2)(B) (a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability
only “if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency . . . or did not
otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability”). We reject as without
merit Ferrari’s contention regarding the alleged invalidity of the notices of
deficiency, as signatures are not required and the Commissioner’s compliance with
Internal Revenue Manual requirements is not mandatory. See Urban v. Comm’r,
964 F.2d 888, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1992).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --