Evans v. Cir

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAYNE C. EVANS; MADELYN F. Nos. 10-73745, 10-73746
EVANS,
Tax Ct. Nos. 24498-07, 24510-07
Petitioners - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Wayne C. Evans and Madelyn F. Evans
appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies and penalties
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for tax years 1995 and 1996. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We
review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and for clear error the Tax
Court’s factual determinations. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.
1995). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in concluding that the three-year statute of
limitations in 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) does not apply and that the penalty under 26
U.S.C. § 6663 was properly imposed on Wayne Evans because there was clear and
convincing evidence that the underpayment of income in the Evans’s 1995 and
1996 tax returns was fraudulent. See Laurins v. Comm’r, 889 F.2d 910, 913 (9th
Cir. 1989) (setting forth circumstantial evidence, or badges of fraud, from which
court can infer fraudulent intent).
The Tax Court did not clearly err in sustaining the Commissioner’s
deficiency determinations and determining that the Evans failed to produce
sufficient evidence to demonstrate their entitlement to claimed business
deductions. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007)
(taxpayer bears burden of showing right to claimed deduction).
The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Madelyn Evans failed to
qualify for innocent spouse relief because she failed to show that she did not know
or have reason to know of the understatements. See Ordlock v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d
2 10-73745
1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008) (requirements to qualify for innocent spouse relief
under 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b)).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in making evidentiary rulings
concerning admission of documents submitted by the Commissioner and exclusion
of documents submitted by the Evans, including the profit-and-loss statement. See
Bradford v. Comm’r, 796 F.2d 303, 306 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of
review for Tax Court evidentiary rulings).
We reject the Evans’s remaining contentions concerning Fifth Amendment
violations, advice of their counsel, and Tax Court bias.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-73745