MEMORANDUM **
Marc Pretscher appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with its collection action. 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.
The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the Commissioner because Pretscher failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the proposed collection action for tax years 2001 through 2004 should not proceed. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir.1992).
Pretscher’s contention that he was improperly denied a face-to-face collection due process hearing is unavailing because “[a] CDP hearing may, but is not required to, consist of a face-to-face meeting....” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-l(d)(2) (Q & A-6).
The record does not support Pretscher’s contention that the Tax Court considered evidence outside the administrative record.
Pretscher’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.