O'Connor v. Commissioner , 606 F. App'x 390 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL HUGH O’CONNOR, No. 13-71413
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 7234-11
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Hugh O’Connor appeals pro se from a decision of the Tax Court
denying his petition challenging a deficiency in his 2008 income tax. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
legal conclusions, and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm’r,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s determination of
deficiency because the amount paid to O’Connor for his participation in a medical
research study was not excludable from his gross income as a gift or as
compensation for his injuries or sickness. See 26 U.S.C. § 61 (broadly defining
gross income); Comm’r v. Dunkin, 500 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“[E]xclusions from gross income are construed narrowly in favor of taxation.”);
see also Comm’r v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 337 (1995) (a taxpayer may only
exclude amounts under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2), as compensation for physical
injuries or physical sickness, when the taxpayer demonstrates, among other things,
that the payment was received on account of personal physical injury or physical
sickness); Comm’r v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 286 (1960) (“A gift in the
statutory sense . . . proceeds from a detached and disinterested generosity, . . . out
of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
We reject O’Connor’s contentions concerning his right to privacy, his Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the alleged lack of
jurisdiction of this court, the Tax Court, and the Internal Revenue Service.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-71413