Richard Main v. Cir ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD BREWSTER MAIN, No. 17-71070
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 20609-14
v. MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Attorney Richard Brewster Main appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s
decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue’s determination of deficiencies and penalties, after concessions, for tax
year 2009. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings.
Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Main failed to produce
sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to further deductions. See
Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (taxpayer bears burden
of showing sufficient evidence to substantiate a claimed deduction). Contrary to
Main’s contention, the Tax Court did not err in failing to shift the burden of proof
to the Commissioner. See 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (requirements for shifting burden of
proof to Commissioner after taxpayer produces credible evidence).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence Main’s
tax return and the notice of deficiency. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (authentication
requirement is satisfied by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is
what the proponent claims it is”); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (7) (authentication
by witness testimony and evidence that document filed in a public office); United
States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 permits a court to
admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a trier of fact can
find in favor of authenticity or identification); Pahl v. Comm’r, 150 F.3d 1124,
1132 (9th Cir. 1998) (no abuse of discretion where Tax Court admitted under Rule
901(b)(1) document authenticated by witness testimony as to the accuracy of the
signature on the document); see also Sparkman, 509 F.3d at 1156 (standard of
2 17-71070
review for evidentiary rulings). We reject as without merit Main’s remaining
evidentiary objections.
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial on the
date set and limiting the trial to one day. See Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923,
941 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review for trial management
decisions and indicating that trial courts have broad authority to impose reasonable
time limits on trials).
We reject as without merit Main’s contentions regarding the computation of
his tax deficiency pursuant to Tax Court Rule 155 and alleged due process
violations.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-71070