FINE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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. 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.