NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD I. FINE; MARYELLEN No. 17-71042
OLMAN-FINE,
Tax Ct. No. 23553-15L
Petitioners-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Richard I. Fine and Maryellen Olman-Fine appeal pro se from the Tax
Court’s summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s
determination sustaining a proposed collection action for tax years 2010, 2011, and
2012. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo.
*
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).
Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
Because the record shows that the appeals officer did not abuse his
discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action for tax years 2010, 2011,
and 2012, the Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the government.
See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider
in making a determination to sustain a proposed collection action).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Fines’ motion to
set aside the order and decision because the Fines failed to demonstrate any ground
for relief. See Parkinson v. Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting
forth standard of review); see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We reject as without merit the Fines’ contentions regarding due process,
fraud upon the Tax Court, their entitlement to take depositions, evidentiary
objections, tax years other than the ones at issue in this action, Richard Fine’s
whistleblower claims, and purported credibility determinations.
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-71042