Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Willard Michael CHRISTINE; Patricia Ethel Borgia, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-72997.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
    Willard Michael Christine, Redondo Beach, CA, pro se.
    Patricia Ethel Borgia, Redondo Beach, CA, pro se.
    Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Janet A. Bradley, Esquire, Ellen Page DelSole, Esquire, Trial, John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Willard Michael Christine and Patricia Ethel Borgia appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (“CIR”) determination of a deficiency for tax year 2005. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review for clear error the Tax 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 petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate their entitlement to claimed deductions, including those for expenses relating to travel, entertainment, a laptop computer, dry cleaning, and a home office. See id. (taxpayer bears burden of showing right to claimed deduction); see also 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) (permitting deduction of certain “ordinary and necessary” business expenses); id. at §§ 274(d), 280F(d)(4)(A)(iv) (setting forth substantiation requirements for claimed deductions for travel, entertainment, and computer expenses); id. at § 280A(e)(l) (setting forth limited business use exceptions to general prohibition on deductions with respect to taxpayer’s residence).

Petitioners’ contentions concerning the allegedly unfair process they received before the CIR and the Tax Court are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).