FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 13 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. 1 72 27 -0 8 DEANNA LANGILLE , f.k.a . Dean naBir ds on g, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF IRS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he

U.S. Tax Co urt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andLAW SON,* Di st ric t Ju dg e. PER CURI AM:

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ * Honora ble Hugh L awson, United States District Judge for the Middle D istrict of Georg ia, sitting by designation.Dean naLang il le , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the Tax C ou rt’s fi na l d eci si on in

fav orof t he Co m

m is si on er o f th e In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ Co m m is si on er” o f th e

“ IRS” ) on he r pe ti ti on for red et erm in at io n o f de fic ie nc y for19 93 , 19 94 , and19 95 an d i ts de ni al of h er v ari ou s p os t-t ria l m ot io ns . On ap pe al , sh e arg ue s tha t the Tax Co urt fa il edto de du ctbu si ne ss ex pe ns es forhe r law pra ct ic e an d l os se s fr om he r res id en ti al ren ta l ac ti vi ty. Lang il le als o a rg ue s tha t h er u nd erp aym en t o f ta xe s was no t due to frau d, as th e Tax Co urt fo un d. Inhe r po st -tr ia l m ot io ns , in cl ud in g a m ot io n t o re co ns id er, two m ot io ns forne w tri al , andtwo m ot io ns to va cat e, sh e co nt en de d tha t s he su ffer edfro m ser io us iro n ane m iabe gi nn in g i n 1 99 4 o r 19 95 , an d was no t wel l en ou gh to try her ca se at t he ti m e o f he r ta x h eari ng in20 09 . Dur in g h er t ax tri al , a po te nt ia l b uyer of h er l aw pr act ic e te st ifi edth at Lan gi ll e to ldhi m

th atsh e m ai nt ai ne d two s et s o f bo ok s: on e th atwas a“ was h” an d th e o th er tha t co nt ai ne d the “ real rece ip ts ,” whi chsh e d idno t d is cl os e to th e IRS . An IR S ag en t t es ti fie d tha t dur in g the ex ecu ti on of asea rch warran t atLang il le ’s law off ic e, he fou ndreco rd s o f a b an k a cco un t tha t s he di d n otdi sc lo se to th e IRS in pl as ti c tr as h b ag s, wh ic h h e la te r di sc ov eredco nt ai ne d u nr ep orte d l eg al in co m e. A tax ex am in er t es ti fie d a s t o h ow s he de te rm in edLang il le ’s tax li ab il ity us in g the ba nkde po si t m etho d.

2W e rev ie w th e Tax Co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d i ts leg al

co nc lu si on s d e n ov o. Es ta te of Whi ttv. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 75 1 F .2d 15 48 , 15 56 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). W e co ns tru e b rie fs fil edby pro se l it ig an ts li be ral ly. Tim so n v . Sam

ps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (11 Cir . 20 08 ). th The Six te en th Am en dm en t t o the U.S. Con st itut io n p ro vi de s tha t “ Co ng res s sh al l h av e p owe r to lay andco ll ecttax es on in co m es , fro m what ev er s ou rce de riv ed .” U.S. CONST. Am en d XVI. The Int ern al Rev enue Co de (“ I.R.C.”) im po se s a t ax on tax ab le in co m e o f ev ery in di vi du al who is a ci ti zenor r es id en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d e st at es an d tru st s, wi th so m e ex cep ti on s n otap pl ic ab le he re. 26 U.S.C. § 1 (a)- (e); 26 C.F.R. § 1.1 -1 (a). Anin co m e earne r who fai ls to do so is subjec t t o c iv il pe na lt ie s i f sh e d oe s n otfil e a p ro pe r in co m e ta x re tu rnan d p ay an y ta xe s s he owes . See, e.g ., 26 U.S.C. § 6 65 1( a) (i m po si ng m on et ary pe na lt ie s fo r fai li ng to fil e a t ax return o r pa y tax es ); 2 6 U.S.C. § 66 54 (sa m e if a ta xp ay er un de rp ay s t ax es ). I. TAX DE FICI ENCIES Lan gi ll e arg ue s tha t the tax ex am in er d idno t cr ed itm an y of h er b us in es s ex pe ns es an d i ns te adtre at edth em as p ers on al expe ns es . She als o c on te nd s tha t the ex am in er dup li cat edhe r in co m e whe re Lan gi ll e tr an sf erre d m on ey

in to a di ffer en t acco un t. 3The Co m m is si on er’s d et erm in at io n o f a d efi ci en cy is pre su m edco rrec t, an d th e ta xp ay er h as th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t i t i s in co rrec t. Est at e o f Whi tt , 75 1 F .2dat 1 55 6. Pu rs ua ntto I.R.C. § 74 91 , th e bu rd enof p ro of

as t o fa ctua l m at te rs m ay sh iftfro m

th e ta xp ay er t o the Co m m is si on er, b uton ly if th e ta xp ay er i nt ro du ces cred ib le ev id en ce re gard in g a factua l m at te r affe ct in g h er l iabi li ty andon ly if sh e h as m ai nt ai ne d a ll requi red reco rd s an d c oo pe rat edwith re as on ab le reque st s fr om th e Co m m is si on er, s uc h a s pr ov id in g i nf

orm at io n anddo cu m en ts . I.R.C. § 7 49 1( a), 2 6 U.S.C. § 74 91 (a). Sect io n 6 00 1 o f th e I.R.C. re qu ire s t ax pa y ers to ke ep an d m ai nt ai n fi na nc ia l reco rd s s uf

fic ie ntto pe rm itve rif

ic at io n o f in co m e an d e xp en se s. I.R.C . § 6 00 1, 26 U.S.C. § 6 00 1. If s uc h re co rd s ar e la ck in g, the Co m m is si on er m ay

reco ns tru ct th e ta xp ay er’s i nc om e b y an y reas on ab le in di rectm etho d. Ho ll an d v . Uni te d St at es , 34 8 U.S. 1 21 , 13 0- 32 , 75 S.Ct . 12 7, 1 32 -3 4, 9 9 L.Ed . 15 0 (1 95 4) ; 2 6 U.S.C. § 4 46 (b ). One s uc h m etho d o f rec on st ru ct in g atax pa y er’s i nc om e in di rect ly is th ro ug h the ba nkde po si ts m etho d. Re av es v. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 29 5 F.2 d 3 36 , 33 7- 38 (5t h C ir. 1 96 1) ; Nich ol as v. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 70 T.C. 10 57 , 10 64 (19 78 ). Ind eed , th e ta x c ou rt h as he ldth ata ta xp ay er’s b an k d ep os it s pr ov id e p rima facie ev id en ce o f in co m e, an d the tax pay er h as th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g th atth e b an k d ep os it s ar e n ottax ab le in co m e. Tok ars ki v. Co m m ’r of In te rn al 4Rev enue , 87 T.C. 74 , 77 (19 86 ).

A tax pa y er m ay

de du ctex pe ns es th atare o rd in ary an d n eces sa ry incarry in g on a tr ad e o r bu si ne ss , bu t m ay no t d educ t p ers on al , li vi ng , or fa mil y ex pe ns es . 26 U.S.C. § 2 62 (a). To be de du ct ib le , an i te m m us t: “ (1 ) be pa idor i nc urreddu rin g th e ta xabl e y ear, (2 ) be forcarry in g o n a ny trad e o r bu si ne ss , (3) be anex pe ns e, (4 ) be a ne ces sa ry

ex pe ns e, an d (5 ) be anord in ary ex pe ns e.” Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue v. Lin co ln Sav . & LoanAss ’n, 40 3 U.S. 3 45 , 35 2, 9 1 S .Ct. 1 89 3, 1 89 8, 2 9 L.Ed.2 d 5 19 (19 71 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Taxp ay ers be ar the bu rd enof s ub m it ti ng ev id en ce tha t s up po rts th ei r cl ai m s o f en ti tl em en t t o ade du ct io n a ndth e am ou ntof th aten ti tl em en t. Gat li n v . Comm ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 75 4 F .2d92 1, 9 23 (11 th Ci r. 19 85 ). Lan gi ll e d idno t m eethe r bu rd ento pl eadfact s an d i ss ue s wi th sp eci fic ity an d d idno t s ub st an ti at e h er b us in es s d educ ti on s fo r th e am ou ntsh e cl ai m edin 19 93 , 19 94 , and19 95 , inord er t o o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n tha t the Co m m is si on er h adco rrec tl y

de te rm in edth e ta x d efi ci en ci es us in g the ba nkde po si t m etho d. Inbo thth e Tax Co urt an d o n app eal , Lang il le m ad e o nl y ge ne ral iz ed as se rti on s an d fa il edto cit e an y reco rdev id en ce t o s up po rt s am e. There fo re, the ta x c ou rt d idno t cl earl y

err i n e nt eri ng a de ci si on infav orof t he Co m m is si on er.

5II. LOSSES FROM RENTAL A CTIVITY

Lan gi ll e arg ue s tha t h er l os se s fr om he r ren ta l i nc om e sh ou ldha ve be en de du ct edfro m

he r ne t i nc om e fro m

he r la w pra ct ic e, in st eadof b ei ng tre at edas pa ss iv e act iv ity . Spe ci fic al ly, sh e subm it s tha t h er re nt al bu si ne ss was i n fa ct“ an act iv e b us in es s” an d h er l aw pr act ic e an d re nt al bu si ne ss were “ on e si ng le act iv ity ,” th us m eet in g the requi rem en ts forth e ex cep ti on to th e p as si ve act iv ity ru le . Dete rm in in g wh ethe r Lan gi ll e’s ren ta l ac ti vi ti es were a p as si ve act iv ity in vo lv es a le ga l co nc lu si on or t he ap pl ic at io n o f fac ts to law tha t we re vi ew de no vo . Esta te of Whi tt , 75 1 F .2dat 1 55 6. Sect io n 4 69 of t he I.R.C. g en eral ly pro hi bi ts th e d educ ti on of p as si ve act iv ity lo ss es fro m

un rel at edin co m e, th us pe rm it ti ng pa ss iv e lo ss es to off se t o nl y pa ss iv e in co m e. Sch walb ach v. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 11 1 T.C. 2 15 , 22 3 (1 99 8) . Pas si ve in co m e d oe s n otin cl ud e g ro ss in co m e fro m in te res t, g ai n o n the di sp os it io n o f pr op erty , andearn edin co m e. Id .; I.R.C. § 46 9( e); 26 U.S.C. § 46 9( e). A pa ss iv e act iv ity is on e whi chin vo lv es th e co nduc t o f an y tra de or bu si ne ss inwhi chth e ta xp ay er d oe s n otm at eri al ly part ic ip at e. I.R.C. § 46 9( c)(1 ); 26 U.S.C. § 4 69 (c)( 1) . Ren ta l ac ti vi ty is treat edas p er s e p as si ve act iv ity reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e ta xp ay er m at eri al ly part ic ip at es . Id. at§ 4 69 (c)( 2) , (4) . 6Co ng res s ca rv edou t an ex cep ti on forren ta l ac ti vi ti es of r eal est at e p ro fes si on al s,

effe ct iv e fo r ta x years b eg in ni ng aft er Dece m be r 31 , 19 93 . See Est at e o f Qui ckv. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 11 0 T.C. 1 72 , 18 4 (1 99 8) ; Om ni bu s B ud ge t Rec on ci li at io n Actof 1 99 3, Pub.L. 1 03 -6 6, § 13 14 3, 1 07 Sta t. 4 40 (19 93 ). The ex cep ti on ap pl ie s i f (1 ) m or e th anha lf o f th e ta xp ay er’s p ers on al servi ces pe rfo rm edintra de s o r bu si ne ss es du rin g the y ear a re p erfo rm edin“ real pro pe rty tra de s o r bu si ne ss es ” in whi chsh e m at eri al ly part ic ip at es , and(2) sh e p erfo rm s m or e th an75 0 h ours of s erv ic es insu ch“ real pro pe rty trad es or b us in es se s.” I.R .C. § 4 69 (c)( 7) (B); 26 U.S.C. § 4 69 (c)( 7) (B). Lan gi ll e’s res id en ti al ren ta l ac ti vi ti es do no t qua li fy forth e ex cep ti on to th e pa ss iv e ru le . Firs t, s he ha s n otass ert edth atsh e h as m etth e requi rem en t tha t s he worke d m or e th an50 % of h er h ou rs onreal est at e ren ta l ac ti vi ti es , rathe r th anon le ga l m at te rs . See id . § 4 69 (c)( 7) (B)( i). Fu rth er, s he ha s n otde m on strat edth at sh e p ers on al ly sati sf

ie d the 75 0- ho urrequi rem en t und er § 46 9( c)(7 )(B) . Se e id
. § 46 9( c)(7 )(B) (ii )
. Acco rd in gl y , th e ta x c ou rt p ro pe rly det erm in edth athe r res id en ti al ren ta l re al est at e act iv it ie s wer e p as si ve act iv it ie s fo r th e y ears in qu es ti on . 1 We also rejec t L ang ille’s argument that her r ental ac tiviti es and he r leg al pra ctice

1 wer e “one single activity” such that her pe rsonal ser vices in the pra ctice of

law could c ount toward satisfying the “more than 50%” require ment and the 750- hour re quirement. 7III. FRAUD

Lan gi ll e arg ue s tha t h er fa il ur e to co m pl et e an d fi le de ta il edsch edul es with he r ta x re tu rn s i n 1 99 3, 1 99 4, an d 1 99 5 was du e to he r po orph y si cal an d m en ta l st at e an d s he pro vi de s v ari ou s ex pl an at io ns forhe r acc ou nt in g p ract ic es . Bec au se de te rm in in g the ex is te nc e o f frau d i s a que st io n o f fac t, Pe tz ol dtv. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 92 T.C. 66 1, 6 99 (19 89 ), we rev ie w whet he r Lan gi ll e’s un de rp aym en t o f ta xe s was du e to frau d fo r cl ear e rro r, Est at e o f Whi tt , 75 1 F .2dat 1 55 6. The Co m m is si on er h as th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g fr au d b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce. I.R.C. § 45 4( a), 2 6 U.S.C. § 74 54 (a); Tax C ou rt Rul e 1 42 (b ). The t ax co urt h as ex pl ai ne d tha t the Co m m is si on er m

us t p ro ve th atth e ta xp ay er und erp ai d
Section 469(c) (7)( C) fore closes this argument: that section’s def inition of “rea l property

trade s or businesses” is explicit and does not include the pra ctice of law. We also rejec t L ang ille’s argument that the Tax Court erre d in failingto allow the persona l service time of L ang ille’s employees to c ount ag ainst the 750-hour r equire ment. Section 469(c) (7)( B) (ii) re quires that “tax payer” – not tax payer’ s employees – pe rfor m more than 750 hours in “re al estate trade s or businesses.” Mor eover , L ang ille has failed to point to rec ord evidenc e supportingtime that either she or her e mploy ees spe nt in “rea l estate tra des or businesses.” To the extent that L ang ille argues that she should have benef itted from I .R.C. § 469(i)’s offse t of $25,000, she fa ils to not e that under § 469(i)(3) , that amount is gradually phased out when the tax payer’ s adjusted gross income e x cee ds $100,000. The re cord show that the I RS i n fac t ga ve L ang ille a cr edit for r eal e state expenses for both 1993 and 1995. The a mount credited was re duced in a ccor dance with the phase- out formula conta ined in § 469(i)(3) beca use L ang ille’s adjusted gross income e x cee ded $100,000 for the re levant year s. 8he r ta xe s i n e ach y ear a t i ss ue an d tha t s he in te nd edto ev ad e ta xe s “ by con du ct

in te nd edto co nc eal , mis le ad , or o th erwi se pre ve ntth e co ll ect io n o f ta xe s.” Park s v. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 94 T.C. 65 4, 6 60 -6 1 (1 99 0) . Sect io n 6 66 3 o f th e I.R.C. i m po se s an ad di ti on al am ountad de d t o the tax whe re “ an y

pa rt o f any

un de rp aym en t o f ta x re qu ire d t o b e sh own on a return i s due to frau d.” I.R.C. § 6 66 3( a), 2 6 U.S.C. § 66 63 (a). If the Co m m is si on er es tabl is he s th atan y po rti on of the un de rp aym en t i s at tri bu tabl e to frau d, the n the en ti re un de rp aym en t i s treat edas a ttrib ut ab le to frau d, ex cep t as to th e am ou ntth e ta xp ay er es tabl is he s b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f ev id en ce i s n otatt rib ut ab le to frau d. Id
. § 6 66 3( b) . Acco rd in g t o the tax co urt, fraudis anactua l wro ng do in g c omm it te d wi th th e in te nt“ to ev ad e a t ax be li ev edto be owi ng .” Mar sh al l v . Comm ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 85 T.C. 26 7, 2 72 (19 85 ). Frau d i s n ev er p res um ed , andth e Co m m is si on er m

us t p ro du ce “ so m e in de pe nd en t ev id en ce o f frau du le ntin te nt ” to es tabl is h fr au d. Pe tz ol dt, 92 T.C. at 6 99 . Whe th er fraudex is ts is a qu es ti on of fact , andbe fo re fi nd in g fr au d aco urt m us t co ns id er the en ti re re co rdan d the ta xp ay er’s en ti re co ur se of c on du ct . Id . A no ne xc lu si ve li stof f

act or s tha t d em on strat e fraudul en t i nt en t i nc lu de s: (1 ) un de rs ta ti ng in co m e, (2 ) m ai nt ai ni ng in ad equa te reco rd s, (3 ) 9fai li ng to fil e ta x re turn s, (4 ) gi vi ng im pl au si bl e o r in co ns is te nt ex pl an at io ns of b eh av io r, (5 ) co nc eal in g a ss et s, (6 ) fai li ng to co op erat e wit h t ax au th or it ie s, (7 ) en ga gi ng inil le ga l ac ti vi ti es , (8) at te m pt in g t o c on ceal il le ga l ac ti vi ti es , (9) de al in g i n c as h a nd(10 ) fai li ng to m ak e es ti m at edtax pa ym en ts . Rec kl it is v. Co m

m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 91 T.C. 87 4, 9 10 (19 88 ) (ci ti ng Brad fo rd v. Co m m ’r of In te rn al Rev enue , 79 6 F .2d30 3, 3 07 -0 8 (9 th Cir . 19 86 )). The Co m m is si on er h as pro ve d b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th at Lan gi ll e in te nt io na ll y

om it te d i nc om e in he r ta x re tu rn s an d h as sh own th atat l eas t so m e o f Lan gi ll e’s un de rp aym en t i n e ach of t he y ears at i ss ue was due to frau d. Lan gi ll e h as no t d em on st rat edby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t p artof t he un de rp aym en t i s n otdu e to frau d, an d thu s, the en ti re und erp aym en t fo r eac h year was pro pe rly treat edas due to frau d. See I .R.C. § 66 63 (b ), 26 U.S.C. § 6 66 3( b) . Acco rd in gl y , th e Tax Co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g tha t Lan gi ll e’s un de rp aym en t was du e to frau d. IV. POST-TRIAL MOTIONS Lan gi ll e arg ue s tha t the Tax C ou rt e rredinde nyin g h er v ari ou s p os t-t ria l m ot io ns an d fa il in g t o g ran t h er a n ew he ari ng be cau se sh e was to o i ll to pre pa re fo r he r 20 09 tax he ari ng . W e rev ie w th e ta x c ou rt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Byrd’s Est at e, 38 8 F .2dat 2 34 (5t h C ir. 1 96 7) . Tax Co urt Ru le 16 2 10go ve rn s m ot io ns to va cat e, bu t d oe s n otsp eci fy when th e ta x c ourt s ho ul d g ran t su cha m ot io n. Tax Co urt Ru le 16 2. Th eref or e, th e ta x c ou rt m ay

lo okto Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 , as an a na lo go us si tu at io n, fo r gu id an ce o n wh ethe r to gra nt m ot io ns to va cat e. See Tax Co urt Ru le 1(b ) (n ot in g “ [w]here i n a ny ins tanc e th ere is no ap pl ic ab le rul e o f pr oc edur e, th e Co urt . . . m ay pre sc rib e th e p ro cedur e, gi vi ng pa rti cu lar wei gh t t o the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e to th e ex te ntth at th ey are s ui tabl y

ad ap tabl e to go ve rnth e m at te r atha nd ”). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o v acat e und er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 60 (b ) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. AIG Bak er St erl in g Hei gh ts , LLC v. Am eri canMu lt i-C in em a, 57 9 F .3d 12 68 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Und er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 60 (b ), a d is tri ctco urt m ay m od ify a judg m en t fo r an y of th e fo ll owi ng reas on s: (1 ) m is ta ke , in adve rte nc e, su rp ris e, orex cu sabl e n eg le ct ; (2 ) ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce tha t, wi threas on ab le di li ge nc e, co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredinti m e to m ov e fo r a n ew tr ia l un de r Ru le 59 (b ); (3 ) frau d (wh ethe r pr ev io us ly call edin tri ns ic or e xtrin si c), m is rep res en ta ti on , or o th er m is co nduc t o f anop po si ng pa rty; (4 ) th e jud gm en t i s v oi d; (5 ) th e jud gm en t h as be ensat is fie d, re le as ed , or d is ch arg ed ; i t i s ba se d o n a n e arl ie r jud gm en t tha t h as be enrev ers edor v acat ed ; orap pl y in g i t p ro sp ect iv el y is no lo ng er equi tabl e; or (6 ) an y othe r rea so n ju st ifyin g re li ef. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ). Claus e si x, the cat ch -al l p ro vi si on th atall ows rel ie f fro m a 11jud gm en t o r or de r fo r “ an y othe r rea so n ju st ifyin g re li ef,” ap pe ars to be th e o nl y cl au se th atco ul d app ly to Lan gi ll e’s si tu at io n. Ho wev er, rel ie f un de r th is pro vi si on is an“ ex tra or di na ry

rem edy whi chm ay

be in vo ke d o nl y

up on a sh owi ng of ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces .” Griff in v. Swi m -Tech Co rp . , 72 2 F .2d67 7, 6 80 (11 th Ci r. 19 84 ). W e rea di ly con cl ud e th atth e Tax Co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g Lan gi ll e’s po st -tr ia l m ot io ns . Lang il le ne ve r as se rte d a ny inc ap aci ty be cau se of h eal th pro bl em s ator b efo re tria l; to th e co nt rary, she an no un cedsh e was “ go od ” atth e b eg in ni ng of t ria l. The Tax C ou rt e xp li ci tl y no te d tha t i t ob se rv edno in cap aci ty, no lac k o f lu ci di ty, oran y di ffi cu lty

co m m un ic at in g, o r an y he al th pro bl em s. Fi na ll y , eve n i f Lan gi ll e’s be la te d, p os t-t ria l ev id en ce were co ns id ered(whi chitsh ou ldno t b e), i t fa il s t o s up po rt a ny inc ap aci ty at tri al . As th e Tax Co urt p oi nt edou t, the on ly evi de nc e rel at edto m ed ic al tre atm en t re cei ve d by Lang il le m or e th ana m on th be fo re tria l, an d Lan gi ll e p ro vi de d n o a ffi da vi t o f an y tre at in g p hysic ian i nd ic at in g the du rat io n o r se ve rit y or t im in g o f an y im pa irment. V. CONCLUSION Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm th e Tax Co urt’s d eci si on an d i ts de ni al of Lan gi ll e’s va rio us m ot io ns . 12AFFIRMED. 2

L ang ille’s motion to waive oral a rgument and submit the case on the brief s and 2 her “ Open letter

to Appellate c ourt” is GRANTED . Acc ording ly , the ca se is remove d from the oral a rgument cale ndar. L ang ille’s “Motion to File Ne wly Discover ed Information” is DEN I ED. 13