NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRELL ARCHER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 19-70304

 19-70305

Tax Ct. Nos. 10444-16

 12414-16

MEMORANDUM*

Appeals from Decisions of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Darrell Archer appeals pro se from the Tax 

Court’s decisions, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue’s determination of deficiencies, penalties, and an addition to tax for tax 

years 2013 and 2014. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-70304 & 19-70305

review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual 

findings. Meruelo v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. 

The Tax Court properly concluded that Archer failed to provide sufficient 

evidence of his claimed deductions to shift the burden of proof to the 

Commissioner to disprove his claimed deductions. 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1), (2) (if 

a taxpayer introduces credible evidence, has complied with the requirements to 

substantiate a deduction, maintained all the required records, and cooperated with 

the Commissioner’s request, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to disprove the 

claimed deduction). 

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Archer failed to 

produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to deductions related to 

business expenses, home office expenses, rental property losses, and charitable 

contributions. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 162(a) (business expenses), 170(a) (charitable 

contributions), 274(d) (travel, meals and vehicle expenses), 280A (home office

expenses); 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.170A-1(c) (charitable contributions), 1.170A-13(a) and 

(b) (charitable contributions), 1.274-5T (travel, meals and vehicle expenses); 

Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n income tax 

deduction is a matter of legislative grace and . . . the burden of clearly showing the 

right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer.” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 
3 19-70304 & 19-70305

The Tax Court did not clearly err in imposing penalties and an addition to 

tax against Archer for filing an untimely tax return for 2014 and for inaccurately 

reporting his income for tax years 2013 and 2014. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) 

(addition to tax appropriate when taxpayer fails to file timely taxes unless such 

failure was due to reasonable cause, not willful neglect), 6662(a), (b) (imposing 

accuracy-related penalty for negligence, disregard of rules or regulations, or 

substantial understatement of income tax); see also United States v. Boyle, 469 

U.S. 241, 245 (1985) (for purposes of § 6651(a)(1), reasonable cause refers to the 

exercise of ordinary business care and prudence which nevertheless results in the

failure to file a timely tax return; willful neglect refers to “conscious, intentional 

failure or reckless indifference”); Dieringer v. Comm’r, 917 F.3d 1135, 1145 (9th 

Cir. 2019) (standard of review and definition of negligence under § 6662(a)). 

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 in the 

reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.