LEVIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.