Menu
Tax Notes logo

Ninth Circuit Affirms Tax Court Deficiency Decision

JUN. 29, 2021

Marc L. Mancini v. Commissioner

DATED JUN. 29, 2021
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES

Marc L. Mancini v. Commissioner

MARC L. MANCINI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Tax Ct. No. 16975-13

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

MEMORANDUM*

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Marc L. Mancini appeals from the Tax Court's decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service's determination of a deficiency for tax year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. Hongsermeier v. Comm'r, 621 F.3d 890, 899 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner's deficiency determination because Mancini's gambling losses incurred from 2008 through 2010 did not qualify as deductible casualty losses. See I.R.C. § 165(c)(3) (limiting casualty deductions to “losses of property not connected with a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit, if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft”).

The Tax Court properly concluded that the Commissioner's acceptance of Mancini's amended tax returns for the 2008 and 2009 tax years did not preclude the disallowance of Mancini's claimed net operating loss carryover deductions for the 2010 tax year. See Little v. Comm'r, 106 F.3d 1445, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the Commissioner's failure to challenge a taxpayer's treatment of an item in one taxable year is irrelevant in the determination of the proper treatment of a similar item in a different taxable year.”); see also I.R.C. § 172 (net operating loss deductions).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

*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).

END FOOTNOTES

DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
Copy RID