ELDO KLINGENBERG V. CIR, No. 13-70506 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 3 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELDO KLINGENBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-70506 Tax Ct. No. 9643-10L MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Eldo Klingenberg appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s judgment upholding Klingenberg’s federal income tax liability for tax years 1991 through 1997, and 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of fact. Johanson v. * 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). Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Klingenberg was sent notices of deficiency for all of the tax years in question and that Klingenberg did not produce any evidence contradicting the certified mail log showing that the notices were mailed. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330 (c)(2)(B) (at a hearing before a levy, a taxpayer may challenge the underlying tax liability if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute it); § 6212(b)(1) (a notice of deficiency addressed to the taxpayer’s last known address suffices for purposes of notice); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984) (an official record of mailing is highly probative and sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to show that the notice of deficiency was properly made). Klingenberg’s contentions that the Tax Court improperly conducted a trial de novo and considered evidence outside of the administrative record are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 13-70506

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.