Ninth Circuit Affirms Individual Liable for Deficiencies, Penalties
Besaw, John Henry v. Commissioner
- Case NameJohn Henry Besaw v. Commissioner
- CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- DocketNo. 16-70264
- JudgePer Curiam
- Cross-Reference
Affirming Besaw v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-233 (2015).
- Parallel Citation695 Fed. Appx. 2762017-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,314120 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2017-54852017 WL 3475486
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- Tax Analysts Document Number2017-66094
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2017 TNT 157-23
Besaw, John Henry v. Commissioner
JOHN HENRY BESAW,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Henry Besaw appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies and penalties. 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. Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Besaw failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to deductions. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (taxpayer bears burden of showing right to claimed deduction). Contrary to Besaw’s contention, the Tax Court did not err in failing to shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner. See 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (requirements for shifting burden of proof to Commissioner).
The Tax Court did not err by imposing penalties for Besaw’s underpayment of tax due to his substantial understatement of income tax. See 26 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); DJB Holding Corp. v. Comm’r, 803 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in not admitting certain documents, including those created during the audit. See Clapp v. Comm’r, 875 F.2d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir. 1989) (tax court’s determination of a tax deficiency is a de novo proceeding on the merits); Sparkman, 509 F.3d at 1156 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings).
We reject as unsupported by the record Besaw’s contention that the Tax Court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
- Case NameJohn Henry Besaw v. Commissioner
- CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- DocketNo. 16-70264
- JudgePer Curiam
- Cross-Reference
Affirming Besaw v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-233 (2015).
- Parallel Citation695 Fed. Appx. 2762017-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,314120 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2017-54852017 WL 3475486
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- Tax Analysts Document Number2017-66094
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2017 TNT 157-23