FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN SILVERMAN, No. 08-70384
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 13629-05L
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Marvin Silverman appeals the tax court’s entry of summary
judgment in favor of Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for
Petitioner’s tax liabilities for 1989, 1990, and 1998. We affirm.
1. Petitioner had an opportunity in his earlier bankruptcy proceeding to
challenge his underlying tax liabilities. In general, when the Internal Revenue
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Service submits a proof of claim for unpaid federal tax in a taxpayer’s bankruptcy
action, the taxpayer has an opportunity to dispute the liabilities for purposes of 26
U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). Kendricks v. Comm’r, 124 T.C. 69, 77 (2005). Here, in
Petitioner’s bankruptcy case, the IRS timely submitted proof of claims for
Petitioner’s unpaid tax liabilities, and Petitioner (who was represented by counsel)
could have contested those claims. But during the lengthy course of the
bankruptcy, Petitioner did not dispute those tax liabilities. Accordingly, Petitioner
had an opportunity to challenge the underlying liabilities even though he did not
take advantage of it.
2. It is within Respondent’s discretion to grant Petitioner a face-to-face
meeting. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D6). Because Petitioner raised only
groundless claims, such as a demand to inspect documents that the government
was not required to provide, he was not entitled to a face-to-face meeting. See id.
§ 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D7) (stating that a taxpayer who presents relevant, non-
frivolous arguments in the hearing request ordinarily will be offered the
opportunity for a face-to-face meeting). Respondent scheduled a telephonic
meeting with Petitioner, but Petitioner failed to provide the correct contact
information that would have allowed the conference to occur. Accordingly,
Petitioner has failed to establish a regulatory or statutory violation.
AFFIRMED.