NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Commissioner of the Internal Revenue’s determination of 

income tax deficiencies and penalties for 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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 deficiencies for tax years 2006 and 

2007 because Safakish did not meet his burden to show his entitlement to business 

expense deductions. 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 the failure did not result from ‘willful 

neglect,’ and (2) that the failure was ‘due to reasonable cause.’” (citation omitted)). 

The Tax Court properly found that Safakish was liable for accuracy-related 
3 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 

Kirshner 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 distinctly 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.