
    Forest S. WHITAKER; Keisha Whitaker, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-73450
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed OCTOBER 4, 2017
    Steven Ray Mather, Mather Law Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA, Petitioners-Appellants.
    Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Bruce R. El-lisen, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Forest S. Whitaker and Keisha Whitaker appeal from the Tax Court’s summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with its collection action for the Whitakers’ federal income tax liability for tax year 2013. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

Because the Tax Court properly determined that, the Settlement Officer did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the Whit-akers’ request for an installment agreement, the Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, See 26 U.S.C. § 6159; 26 C.F.R. § 301.6159—l(b)(l)(i) (IRS Settlement Officer has discretion to accept or reject any proposed installment plan); see also 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (Settlement Officer must decide “whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.”).

We reject as without merit the Whit-akers’ contention that the IRS Office of Appeals was biased.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     