                  United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 12-1914
                         ___________________________

                                Harold Ray Stanley

                              lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

                                           v.

                        Commissioner of Internal Revenue

                              lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee
                                    ____________

                     Appeal from the United States Tax Court
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: October 12, 2012
                             Filed: October 15, 2012
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Harold Stanley appeals the tax court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in
his tax action. After careful consideration, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r,
594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.) (de novo review), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 86 (2010), we
conclude summary judgment was proper, see Bell v. Comm’r, 126 T.C. 356, 358

      1
       The Honorable Elizabeth Crewson Paris, United States Tax Court Judge.
(2006) (26 U.S.C. § 6330 allows challenges to existence or amount of underlying
liability if petitioner did not receive notice of deficiency or otherwise have opportunity
to dispute liability; this statutory preclusion is triggered by opportunity to contest
underlying liability, even if opportunity is not pursued). We therefore affirm the
ruling of the tax court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellant’s pending motion.
                           ______________________________




                                           -2-
