Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven YARI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-73914
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 3, 2016  Pasadena, California
    Filed October 13, 2016
    Steven Ray Mather, Mather Law Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney, Douglas Campbell Rennie, Attorney, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: REINHARDT, FERNANDEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Yari appeals the decision of the Tax Court, which upheld the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of the penalty which resulted from Yari’s failure to disclose a reportable listed transaction when he filed his 2004 income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6707A(a), (b)(2)(A), (c). We affirm.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). As with appeals from the district courts, we review issues of law de novo, but review findings of fact for clear error. See Meruelo v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Estate of Ashman v. Comm’r, 231 F.3d 541, 542 (9th Cir. 2000).

We agree with the Tax Court that the Commissioner properly based his calculation of the penalty upon the return signed by Yari on October 17, 2005, rather than upon amendments to that return, which were prepared years later. See Yari, 143 T.C. at 163-69. We, therefore, affirm the Tax Court for the reasons stated in its comprehensive decision. Id. at 157-69.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Yari v. Comm’r, 143 T.C. 157 (2014).