FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARC PRETSCHER, No. 08-75060
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 17500-07L
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Marc Pretscher appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment
allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with
its collection action. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We
review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
*
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).
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the Commissioner
because Pretscher failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
the proposed collection action for tax years 2001 through 2004 should not proceed.
See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Hughes
v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir. 1992).
Pretscher’s contention that he was improperly denied a face-to-face
collection due process hearing is unavailing because “[a] CDP hearing may, but is
not required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting. . . .” 26 C.F.R.
§ 301.6330-1(d)(2) (Q & A D6).
The record does not support Pretscher’s contention that the Tax Court
considered evidence outside the administrative record.
Pretscher’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-75060