Sandy Rowe v. Cir ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SANDY LEE ROWE; SYLVIA MARIE                    Nos. 21-71308
    ROWE,                                                21-71310
    Petitioners-Appellants,         IRS Nos. 6432-20
    7592-20
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted March 14, 2023**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Sandy Lee Rowe and Sylvia Marie Rowe appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s
    decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal
    Revenue’s determination of deficiencies for tax years 2017 and 2018. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax
    *
    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).
    Court’s determination that a taxpayer has not met his burden to substantiate a
    deduction. Sparkman v. Comm’r, 
    509 F.3d 1149
    , 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). We
    affirm.
    The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that the Rowes failed to
    produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate their entitlement to claimed deductions
    related to business expenses for tax years 2017 and 2018. See Norgaard v.
    Comm’r, 
    939 F.2d 874
    , 877 (9th Cir. 1991) (the taxpayer carries the burden of
    establishing entitlement to a deduction); see also 
    26 U.S.C. § 162
    (a) (permitting
    deduction of certain “ordinary and necessary” business expenses); 
    id.
     § 274(d)
    (setting forth substantiation requirements for claimed deductions for travel,
    entertainment, and meal expenses). Contrary to the Rowes’ contention, the Tax
    Court did not err by requiring them to justify their business expenses for tax year
    2018, as they admitted they were seeking a deduction for business expenses rather
    than their initial request for a qualified business income deduction.
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     21-71308
    21-71310
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-71308

Filed Date: 3/20/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/20/2023