KAREN FUJITA V. CIR, No. 17-70050 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN FUJITA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-70050 Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 10100-15L v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Karen Fujita appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment sustaining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection action for the 2003 and 2009 tax years. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Sollberger v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). We * 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). affirm. The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the settlement officer did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action for tax years 2003 and 2009. 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); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability only “if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency . . . or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability”). In light of our disposition, we do not consider Fujita’s contentions challenging the validity of the underlying tax assessments. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as meritless Fujita’s contentions concerning sanctions and violations of due process. Fujita’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-70050

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.