NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-56463
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-04504-SJO-RZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RUDRA SABARATNAM,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
MUFTHIHA SABARATNAM,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rudra Sabaratnam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
*
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).
judgment for the United States in its action to reduce to judgment Sabaratnam’s tax
liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Sabaratnam’s
trust fund penalties for tax year 2000 because Sabaratnam failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether the assessments of these penalties were
untimely. See 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) (Internal Revenue Service must assess a tax
liability within three years after a return is filed); id. at § 6672(b)(3)(B) (where a
protest to a notice informing taxpayer of penalties is made, the statute of
limitations is extended until 30 days after the final administrative determination
with respect to that protest); FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168,
1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts
and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact.”).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sabaratnam’s remaining
contentions.
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 15-56463