Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Franklin M. SYKES; Erlinda L. Sykes, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-72394.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 25, 2012.
    Franklin M. Sykes, Northridge, CA, pro se.
    Erlinda L. Sykes, Northridge, CA, pro se.
    Carol Barthel, Esquire, Jonathan S. Cohen, 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: 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

Franklin M. Sykes and Erlinda L. Sykes appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of an income tax deficiency and a penalty for tax year 2004. 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 determinations. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that the Sykeses were not entitled to their claimed casualty deduction. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir.2007) (taxpayer bears burden of clearly showing right to claimed deduction, and Tax Court’s factual determination that taxpayer has failed sufficiently to substantiate deduction must be upheld unless clearly erroneous); 26 C.F.R. § 1.165-7(a)(2)(i) (explaining that “the fair market value of the property immediately before and immediately after the casualty shall generally be ascertained by competent appraisal”).

We do not consider whether the Tax Court erred by sustaining the accuracy-related penalty imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 because the issue was not argued in the opening brief. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir.2008) (deeming waived issues not raised in the opening brief).

The Sykeses’ remaining contentions, including those concerning the Romero appraisal report, are unpersuasive.

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