NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMIR SAFAKISH,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

- Appellee. No. 15

- 70826 Tax Ct. No. 8032

- 10

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted April 11, 2017 ** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Amir Safakish appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision following a
bench trial upholding the Commi ssioner of the Internal Revenue’ s determination of
income tax deficiencies and penalties f or tax years 2006 and 2007, and additions
for 2007 . We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 70826

the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of fact. Johanson
v. Comm’r , 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The Tax Court properly determined the deficienci es for tax years 2006 and
2007 because Safakish did not meet his burden to show his entitlement to business expense deduc tions

. See Delaney v. Comm’r , 743 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir. 1984) (Commissioner’s deficiency determination is presumptively correct and it is incumbent on taxpayer to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence); Cracchiola v. Comm’r , 643 F.3d 1383, 1385 (9th Cir. 1981) (taxpayer must maintain records from which his tax liability can be determined); Geiger v.
Comm’r , 440 F.2d 688, 689 (9th Cir. 1971) (burden is on the taxpayer to prove he is entitled to business expense deductions); see also 26 U.S.C. § 6001

. The Tax Court properly found that Safakish failed to demonstrate reasonable
cause for the late filing of his 2007 tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) ( providing for penalties for failure to file a timely tax return ) ; United States v. Boyle , 469 U.S. 241, 245 ( 1985) ( “ To escape the penalty, the taxpayer bears the heavy burden of proving both (1) that t he failure did not result from ‘willful neglect,’ and (2) that the failure was ‘due to reasonable cause.’” (citation o mitted) )

. The Tax Court properly found that Safakish was liable for accuracy

- related3 15

- 70826

penalties for the tax years 2006 and 2007 for underpayment caused by Safakish’s negligence

. See 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a), (b); Hansen v. Comm’r , 741 F.3d 1021,
1028

- 29 (9th Cir. 2006) ( accuracy - related penalty on underpayment of tax may be
assessed due to taxpayer’s negligence)

. We do not consider documents submitted by Safakish with his opening and reply briefs that were not filed or admitted into evidence by the Tax Court. See
Kir shner v. Uniden Corp. of Am

. , 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) ( papers not
filed or admitted into evidence below are not part of the record on appeal) ; see also Fed. R. App. P. 10

. We do not consider matters not specifically and di stinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.