Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0158-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Megan JAMES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 08-72346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 26, 2012.
    Megan James, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Richard Morrison, Esquire, Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory, John A. Nolet, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Megan James appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief for tax years 2000-2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo. Miller v. Comm’r, 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly determined that James failed to qualify for innocent spouse relief because she did not file any valid joint returns. See 26 U.S.C. § 6065 (“Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.”); Ordlock v. Comm’r, 538 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2008) (“To qualify for innocent spouse relief, the taxpayer must show that the couple filed a joint return, that the return contained an understatement attributable to ‘erroneous items’ of the other spouse, and that in signing the return, the ‘innocent spouse’ did not know or have reason to know of the understatement.” (emphasis added)).

James’s remaining contentions, including those concerning duress and estoppel, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.