LUKE BRUGNARA V. CIR, No. 14-70325 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 23 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUKE D. BRUGNARA, No. 14-70325 Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 10243-12L v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Luke D. Brugnara appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment for the Internal Revenue Service regarding his federal income tax liabilities for various tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo, Taproot Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Comm’r, 679 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. * 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). 2012), and we affirm. The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment as to tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008 because Brugnara failed to raise properly the underlying tax liability in a collection due process (“CDP”) hearing. See Giamelli v. Comm’r, 129 T.C. 107, 115 (2007) (when a taxpayer disagrees with a notice of determination, the taxpayer may ask the Tax Court to consider the issues that were properly raised in the CDP hearing); Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(f)(2) Q & A F3 (“An issue is not properly raised if the taxpayer fails to request consideration of the issue by Appeals, or if consideration is requested but the taxpayer fails to present to Appeals any evidence with respect to that issue after being given a reasonable opportunity to present such evidence.”). We reject as unsupported by the record Brugnara’s contention that he did not receive the notice of determination. AFFIRMED. 2 14-70325

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.