Jamillah Muhammad v. Cir ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMILLAH KAMILLAH MUHAMMAD, No. 21-71307
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 7296-20
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jamillah Kamillah Muhammad appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s
decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue’s (“IRS”) determination of a deficiency for tax year 2016. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
*
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).
legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Hardy v. Comm’r,
181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency
determination because the Commissioner presented some evidence that
Muhammad failed to report income, and Muhammad did not submit any relevant
evidence showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 61(a) (defining gross income as “all income from whatever source derived”);
Hardy, 181 F.3d at 1004-05 (“If the Commissioner introduces some evidence that
the taxpayer received unreported income, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show
by a preponderance of the evidence that the deficiency was arbitrary or
erroneous.”); see also Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 409 (9th Cir. 1990)
(recognizing that this court has rejected multiple variations of the “wages are not
income” argument).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. See
Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 539-40 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that “this circuit as well as other circuits have
held that official IRS documents, even if generated by a computer, are admissible
as public records.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Muhammad’s contentions that her
2 21-71307
due process rights were violated or that the Tax Court was biased against her.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-71307