DocketNumber: 12-72342
Citation Numbers: 591 F. App'x 625
Filed Date: 2/3/2015
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 3 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER C. BRONSON; CAROLYN P. No. 12-72342 BRONSON, Tax Ct. No. 26463-08 Petitioners - Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. PETER C. BRONSON; CAROLYN P. No. 12-72343 BRONSON, Tax Ct. No. 17478-08 Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from Decisions of the United States Tax Court * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted January 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Peter C. Bronson, an attorney, and Carolyn P. Bronson appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decisions, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for tax years 2001-05, and liability for an understatement penalty in tax years 2004 and 2005. We have jurisdiction under26 U.S.C. § 7482
(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions, Ann Jackson Family Found. v. Comm’r,15 F.3d 917
, 920 (9th Cir. 1994), and for clear error its factual determinations, Hansen v. Comm’r,471 F.3d 1021
, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Bronsons were not engaged in horse-training and breeding activity for profit within the meaning of26 U.S.C. § 183
. See Comm’r v. Groetzinger,480 U.S. 23
, 35 (1987) (“[T]o be engaged in a trade or business, . . . the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit.”); see also Hansen,471 F.3d at 1028
(Tax Court’s weighing of the evidence will be upheld unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 12-72342 been committed” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Tax Court did not clearly err by imposing an accuracy-related penalty for the Bronsons’ underpayment of tax due to their substantial understatement of income tax. See26 U.S.C. § 6662
(a), (b)(2) (authorizing penalty equal to 20% of the underpayment for, among other things, a substantial understatement of income tax);id.
§ 6662(d)(1)(A) (defining substantial understatement). AFFIRMED. 3 12-72342