RICHARD LEVIN V. CIR, No. 19-70314 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD H. LEVIN; LINDA D. LEVIN, Petitioners-Appellants, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-70314 IRS No. 11578-14L MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Tax Court Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Richard H. Levin, an attorney, and Linda D. Levin appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s determination to collect by levy the appellants’ unpaid federal income taxes for the year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de * 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). novo the Tax Court’s summary judgment, Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s evidentiary rulings, Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in considering the settlement officer’s declaration and administrative record when evaluating the motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (authentication requirement is satisfied by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (7) (authentication by witness testimony and evidence that document was filed in a public office); United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1191-93 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 permits a court to admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a trier of fact can find in favor of authenticity or identification). We do not consider issues raised by the appellants in their brief which are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED. 2 19-70314

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.