
    Richard T. BRODERICK; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Internal Revenue Service, Defendant.
    No. 03-15747.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
    Richard T. Broderick, pro se, Phoenix, AZ, Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Charlotte M. Broderick, pro se, Phoenix, AZ, Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert L. Baker, Esq., David English Carmack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Anthony T. Sheehan, Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee/Defendant.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard T. and Charlotte Broderick appeal pro se the district court’s summary judgment which dismissed their complaint seeking to set aside the decision of the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office which authorized collection of a penalty imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing frivolous tax returns in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The district court correctly determined that no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the frivolous nature of the Brodericks’ challenge to the penalty. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir.1985); Wilcox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007,1008 (9th Cir.1988).

As the district court held, the Internal Revenue Service complied with the procedures for administrative collection of taxes in 26 U.S.C. § 6330, and the Brodericks’ arguments to the contrary were totally meritless. The district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings on the Brodericks’ requests to strike the declaration of an IRS employee and attached exhibits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) and 801(d)(2).

The district court correctly denied the Brodericks’ motion to amend the complaint to add a challenge to the underlying income tax assessment, because amendment would have been futile since the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to income tax assessments. 26 C.F.R. § 601.102(b)(l)(I).

Accordingly, the district court is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     