FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY OROPEZA, No. 08-73127
Petitioner, Tax Ct. No. 3707-05L
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal from a Decision of the
Tax Court
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Oropeza appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding
the Office of Appeals’s determination approving the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue’s (the “Commissioner”) proposed collection action against Oropeza for
unpaid tax assessments for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo, Fargo v. Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706,
709 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly reviewed appropriate evidence in the administrative
record and concluded that the Office of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the Commissioner’s proposed collection action was correct. See
26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3)(B) & (3)(C); see also Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (the “whole” administrative record before tax
court includes “all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by
[the] agency”) (emphasis in original). Specifically, Oropeza failed to demonstrate
that the Commissioner’s assessment procedures were improper, that the Secretary
of Treasury did not delegate his authority to Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)
personnel, or that the Office of Appeals erred in offering him only a telephonic
collection due process hearing. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(d)(2)(Q&A-D6 to D-
8) (hearings to review proposed collection activity are informal, need not be
recorded, and may be conducted by correspondence, telephone, or face-to-face);
see also Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)
(absent contrary evidence, IRS Certificate of Assessments and Payments
establishes that notices and assessments were proper); Hughes v. United States,
2 08-73127
953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992) (rejecting argument that IRS agents acted
without proper authority from Treasury Secretary).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $10,000 penalty on
Oropeza for raising frivolous arguments after he was repeatedly warned that he
could be sanctioned if he continued to pursue groundless positions. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 6673(a)(1) (authorizing penalty up to $25,000 against taxpayer who institutes
proceedings frivolously or primarily for delay); Wolf v. Comm’r, 4 F.3d 709, 716
(9th Cir. 1993) (no abuse of discretion in sanctioning taxpayer under § 6673 after
putting him on notice that sanctions could result from frivolous litigation).
Oropeza’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-73127