Cir

MEMORANDUM

Eric P. Mattson appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, after a bench trial, permitting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with a collection action for tax years 2001 and 2002. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482 (a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions following a trial. Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Comm’r, 425 F.3d 1203, 1211 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s proposed collection action because, contrary to Mattson’s contention, the record indicates that the underlying tax liabilities were not properly a part of Mattson’s collection due process (“CDP”) hearing, as Mattson had an earlier opportunity to contest them. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330 -l(e)(3) Q & A Ell (an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Appeals officer may consider the existence and amount of an underlying tax liability as a part of a CDP hearing only if the taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency for the tax liability in question or, otherwise have a prior opportunity to dispute the tax liability); see also United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.1984) (a notice of…