UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

WILLIAM FRENCH ANDERSON; 

KATHRYN D. ANDERSON, 

 Petitioners - Appellants, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 23-9002 

(CIR No. 23789-16) 

(U.S. Tax Court) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Petitioners William French Anderson and Kathryn D. Anderson appeal a 

decision of the United States Tax Court. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 

26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), we affirm. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 17, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 1
2 

 I. Background 

Dr. William French Anderson is a pediatric geneticist who worked at the 

University of Southern California (USC) in the medical school. He holds gene 

therapy patents including patents related to the use of molecule interleukin-12 

(IL-12). Dr. Anderson tried to develop IL-12 and bring it to market as a cancer 

treatment. While at USC, Dr. Anderson had a research assistant who contributed to 

the research on IL-12 and was named a co-inventor on the patent. 

In 2004, Dr. Anderson was arrested on allegations of sexually abusing the 

minor daughter of his research assistant. In 2006, he was convicted in California 

state court of three counts of lewd acts on a minor and one count of continuous 

sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 and was sentenced to fourteen years in 

prison. He appealed, and the California Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions 

and sentence. The California Supreme Court then denied his petition for review. In 

2011, he filed a state habeas corpus petition that was denied, and in 2014, he filed a 

federal habeas corpus petition that was also denied. 

The Internal Revenue Service determined deficiencies in Petitioners’ federal 

income taxes after disallowing deductions for legal fees of $292,175 on their 2013 

tax return and $68,120 on their 2014 return. Petitioners petitioned the Tax Court for 

a redetermination of the tax deficiencies asserted against them, arguing the legal fees 

were deductible as business expenses. 

The Tax Court held a trial on the petition, and then ordered the parties to file 

seriatim post-trial briefs. In their opening brief, Petitioners argued that the 2013 and 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 2
3 

2014 legal fees were deductible as business expenses because the origin of the claim 

for which the legals fees were incurred (the criminal charges against Dr. Anderson) 

arose from Dr. Anderson’s gene therapy business and his discovery and development 

of IL-12. Petitioners asserted that Dr. Anderson’s former colleague caused false 

accusations of molestation to be filed against him as the vehicle to steal his 

intellectual property. 

In its Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion, the Tax Court noted it had 

granted the government’s motion in limine to preclude any evidence or arguments 

that Dr. Anderson was framed on false charges but, in contravention of that order, 

Petitioners continued to make that argument in their opening brief. The court 

reiterated that Dr. Anderson was convicted after a jury trial of the criminal charges 

brought against him and that his conviction was upheld on appeal. The court 

therefore stated it would not address the argument further. 

The court explained that “[26 U.S.C. §] 162(a) allows a deduction for all 

ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying 

on any trade or business.” Aplt. App., vol. I at 121. But “[t]he taxpayer must show 

that a reported business expense was incurred primarily for business rather than 

personal reasons and that there was a proximate relationship between the expense and 

the business.” Id. at 122. The court further explained it must look to the origin and 

character of the claim for which the legal fees were incurred because “[i]f the claim 

arose in connection with the taxpayer’s profit-seeking activities, the fees are 

deductible.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 3
4 

The Tax Court concluded that the legal fees arose out of Dr. Anderson’s 

personal activities because they related to the criminal charges against him for sexual 

abuse of a minor. The court explained the criminal acts were alleged to have 

occurred at Dr. Anderson’s home where he tutored the minor and provided her with 

martial arts training, he did not receive payment for these activities, and he was not 

in the business of providing either service. The court further explained “[t]he 

charges did not involve Dr. Anderson’s gene therapy business or any other trade or 

business activity engaged in for the production or collection of income.” Id. at 123. 

The court next addressed Petitioners’ “narrow[er],” id., argument in their 

post-trial reply brief that the 2013 and 2014 legal fees were “investigatory attorney 

fees” that were incurred to investigate the conduct of Dr. Anderson’s former 

colleague for “corporate sabotage” and “intellectual property theft.” Id., vol. XVII at 

4253. The court “recognize[d] that, when appropriate, litigation costs must be 

apportioned between business and personal claims,” and it “agree[d] that 

investigating and combatting potential security threats, such as sabotage and 

intellectual property theft, are ordinary and necessary business expenses.” Id., vol. I 

at 124 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court explained that “[a]lthough the 

criminal charges against Dr. Anderson generally relate to his personal conduct and 

relationship with the minor, petitioners’ investigation into and analysis of the alleged 

malfeasance by the former colleague directly pertain to Dr. Anderson’s gene therapy 

business, and legal fees expended specifically to those ends are deductible business 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 4
5 

expenses.” Id. But the court determined that “Petitioners’ framing of the facts. . . is 

inconsistent with the evidence.” Id. 

 Petitioners asserted that the legal fees they paid to Attorney Douglas Otto1

 in 

2013 and 2014 were entirely for investigatory purposes and that Mr. Otto employed 

Daniel Haste to investigate the corporate sabotage and intellectual property theft. 

The Tax Court explained, however, that “[i]n 2013 petitioners paid $292,175 to 

Mr. Otto” and “Mr. Otto’s records reflect that a portion of these funds was paid to 

various attorneys, audio experts, and investigators, but Mr. Haste was not among 

those payees.” Id. The court further explained that “[n]o invoices or other 

documentation for 2013 reference Mr. Haste or his investigation, and there is no 

evidence that any of the 2013 legal expenses went toward researching, investigating, 

or analyzing the corporate sabotage or espionage allegations.” Id. at 125. Instead, 

the descriptions of work “primarily focus[] on Dr. Anderson’s ineffective assistance 

of counsel argument, analysis of the audio recording used against [him] during his 

criminal trial, and attempts to contact [his] now-adult accuser.” Id. at 124-25. The 

court therefore found that the legal fees “all expressly pertain to the state habeas 

appeal, [in] which Dr. Anderson raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

1

 It is undisputed that Mr. Otto represented Dr. Anderson in his state habeas 

case. After the state court denied habeas relief in June 2013, Dr. Anderson petitioned 

for rehearing, and the court granted it. Although the court vacated its earlier opinion 

and issued a new opinion in September 2013, the result was the same. Dr. Anderson 

then petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court, but that court denied 

review in December 2013. 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 5
6 

challenged the integrity of [an audio] recording [used against him], and alleged other 

misconduct by government officials.” Id. at 125. 

 In 2014 Petitioners paid $68,120 to Mr. Otto, with $60,000 going to Mr. Otto 

and the remainder going to others, including $3,000 to Mr. Haste. But the court 

determined “Petitioners did not introduce invoices or other documentation describing 

the work Mr. Otto performed or whether any portion of it relates to Dr. Anderson’s 

business.” Id. The court concluded, however, that the $3,000 paid to Mr. Haste, as 

well as two additional payments to Mr. Haste of $5,000 each that were not included 

in the original deduction amount, related to Dr. Anderson’s gene therapy business. 

The Tax Court sustained the disallowance of Petitioners’ deduction of legal 

fees for their 2013 tax return. For their 2014 tax return, the court sustained $65,120 

out of the $68,120 disallowance, subtracting the $3,000 paid to Mr. Haste, and it 

separately allowed an additional $10,000 business deduction for legal fees for 

additional payments to Mr. Haste. 

Petitioners now seek review of the Tax Court’s decision.2

II. Discussion 

“We review decisions of the Tax Court in the same manner as civil actions 

tried without a jury. That is, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual 

2

 The parties stipulated to review in the Tenth Circuit. See 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7482(b)(2) (“Notwithstanding the provisions of [§ 7482(b)(1)], [Tax Court] 

decisions may be reviewed by any United States Court of Appeals which may be 

designated by the Secretary and the taxpayer by stipulation in writing.”). 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 6
7 

determinations only for clear error. And we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Tax Court’s ruling.” Rsrv. Mech. Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal 

Revenue, 34 F.4th 881, 910 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks, citations, and 

parentheticals omitted). 

Petitioners argue the Tax Court erred as a matter of law in applying § 162(a), 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner v. Tellier, 383 U.S. 687 (1966), and 

the origin-of-the-claim doctrine. They contend Petitioners’ 2013 and 2014 legal fees 

“were spent to investigate and reveal suspected security breaches and [intellectual 

property] theft” and are therefore “deductible business expenses” under “§ 162(a), 

and [Tellier].” Aplt. Opening Br. at 28. 

We are not persuaded by Petitioners’ arguments. First, Petitioners have not 

shown the Tax Court misapplied Tellier. In that case, the petitioner was in the 

securities business, and he was found guilty of securities fraud. See Tellier, 383 U.S. 

at 688. He sought to deduct his legal fees as a business expense, see id., but the 

Commissioner disallowed the deduction “on the ground of public policy,” id. at 690. 

In Tellier, there was no dispute the legal fees were business expenses within the 

meaning of § 162(a)—the Commissioner “concede[d]” they were. Id. at 689. Rather, 

the question was whether there should be a public policy exception to the plain 

language of § 162(a), which the Supreme Court answered in the negative. See id. at 

690-91. 

Although Petitioners frequently cite Tellier to support their argument that 

Dr. Anderson’s 2013 and 2014 legal fees are deductible as business expenses, they 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 7
8 

fail to adequately explain how the Tax Court misapplied that case, which did not 

involve a dispute over whether the legal fees were business expenses as is the case 

here. The Tax Court here acknowledged the Tellier holding, recognizing “Petitioners 

are correct that public policy does not prohibit the deduction of legal fees relating to 

criminal activity so long as the legal fees are an ordinary and necessary expense of a 

trade or business.” Aplt. App., vol. I at 123. The court then went on to explain why 

the legal fees Petitioners incurred were related to personal activities arising out of the 

criminal charges against him for sexually molesting a minor and not to any business 

activities. We see no error in the Tax Court’s application of Tellier. 

While Petitioners focus much of their appellate briefing on the Tax Court’s 

alleged legal errors, they fail to adequately address the Tax Court’s factual findings. 

The Tax Court found there was no evidence that the 2013 legal fees were incurred to 

investigate Dr. Anderson’s former colleague’s potential sabotage and intellectual 

property theft. Likewise, with the exception of $3,000 (and an additional $10,000 

not originally claimed as a deduction), the Tax Court found there was no evidence 

that the remaining $65,000 in 2014 legal fees were incurred for such investigative 

purposes. In their appellate briefing, Petitioners do not show the Tax Court erred in 

making these factual findings—they point to no evidence the Tax Court overlooked 

or misinterpreted. Instead, they simply make conclusory assertions that the fees paid 

to Mr. Otto in 2013 and 2014 were for business expenses without any record support. 

See, e.g., Aplt. Opening Br. at 21 (“Anderson’s attorney in 2013 and 2014, 

Douglas Otto, further confirmed that the attorney fees paid to him at issue in this case 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 8
9 

by Anderson were for claims that arose from the business relationship between 

Anderson and [his research assistant].”); id. at 28 (“Dr. Anderson’s attorney fees at 

issue in this case . . . were spent to investigate and reveal suspected security breaches 

and [intellectual property] theft.”); id. at 30 (“Attorney Douglas Otto . . . stat[ed] that 

his fees arose as a result of the business relationship between Anderson and [his 

research assistant].”). Based on the lack of evidence supporting Petitioners’ 

conclusory assertions, we see no error, let alone clear error, in the Tax Court’s 

factual findings on this issue. 

As to Petitioners’ remaining arguments, we agree with the Tax Court’s 

well-reasoned decision, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the 

Tax Court’s “Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion” dated March 28, 2023.3

 

III. Conclusion 

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Timothy M. Tymkovich 

Circuit Judge 

3

 We do not consider the California state-court pleading attached to 

Petitioners’ reply brief because it was not before the Tax Court and is not part of the 

record on appeal. See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1191 

(10th Cir. 2000) (“This court will not consider material outside the record before the 

district court.”); Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (stating that the record on appeal is 

comprised of “the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court” and any 

transcripts of proceedings and a certified copy of the district court docket entries); 

Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(4)(A) (stating that the record on appeal from the Tax Court is 

governed by Fed. R. App. P 10). 

Appellate Case: 23-9002 Document: 010111051506 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 9