UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
DENISE C ELESTE M C M ILLAN, Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt Pro Se , Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL R EVENUE, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 13-73139 Ta x C t. No. 4590-11 ORDER

B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. The m e m orandum

disposition file d in this c a se on M ay 15, 2017, is
am e nde d by

the a tta c h e d am e nde d m e m orandum disposition. W

ith this a m e nde d
m e m o randum d i sposition, the pa ne l ha s una

nim ously vote d to de ny

a ppe lla nt's pe tition for pa

ne l re he aring a

nd re c om m e nd de nia l of a

ppe l la nt’ s pe t ition for
re he aring e n ba

nc . The pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc wa s c i rc u lat e d to the judge s of the c ourt,
and no judgere que s te d a

vote for e n ba

nc c onside ra tion. 

# FIL ED SEP 21 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSThe pe titions for re he aring a n d re h e aring e n

ba nc are DE NIE D . The pa

ne l will not c onside r a

ny furthe r pe titions for re he aring in re sponse to the am e n de d
m e m o randum d i sposition.

2N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DENISE C ELESTE M C M ILLAN, Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL R EVENUE, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 13-73139 Ta x C t. No. 4590-11
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 19, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. De nise C e le ste M c M illa

n a ppe a ls pro se the Ta x C ourt’ s de nia l, a fte r a be nc h tria l, of he r pe tition for re de te rm ination of fe de ra l inc om e tax de fic i e nc ie s for ta x y e ars 2007 a

nd 2008. W e re vie w the Ta x C ourt’ s c onc l usions of la wde 

# FIL ED SEP 21 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).novo a

nd its fa c tua l findings for c le ar e rror. M K Hillside

Partne rs v . C

omm’r , 826 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th C ir. 2016). TheTa x C ourt’ s finding tha t a taxpa y e r fa ile d to
m e e t he r burde n of proving tha t she wa s e ntitle d to c la i m e d de duc t ions is re vie we d for c l e ar e rror. Spark

man v . C omm’r , 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th C ir. 2007). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 26 U.S.C . § 7482(a )(1), and we a ffirm the Ta x C ourt’ s judgm e nt. The Ta x C ourt prope rly

c onside re d the fa c tors se t forth in 26 C .F.R . § 1.183- 2(b)(1)-(9) and did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t M c M illa n did not e nga ge in horse
a c tivity for profit in 2007 a n d 2008, a nd the re fore wa s not e ntitle d to ta ke inc om e ta x de duc tions for e xpe nse s a rising from that a c tivity
. Se e 26 U.S.C . § 183(b)(2); Hill v . C o mm’r , 204 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th C ir. 2000); W olf v . C omm’r , 4 F.3d 709, 713 (9th C i r. 1993). The C o m m issione r wa s not bound to a llow de duc tions pe rm itte d in prior ta

x y e ars. Se e Little

v . C o mm’r , 106 F.3d 1445, 1453 (9th C ir. 1997). The Ta x C ourt did not err in disa llowing a c a sua lty loss de duc tion on the ba sis of the de a th of M c M illa n ’ s horse from

dise a se . Se e 26 U.S.C . § 165(c )(3); Unite d State s v . Fly nn , 481 F.2d 11, 13 (1st C ir. 1973) (c a sua lty losse s to horse s, la rge ly due to illne ss or dise a s e , we re “ c le arly not a llowa

ble ” ).

2The Ta x C ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t the e xpe nse s of a la

w suit
we re not dire c tly

c onne c te d with M c M illa n’ s inform a tion te c hnology busine ss, a

n d the re fore we re not de duc tible a s ordina ry and ne c e s sa

ry busine ss e xpe nse s unde r 26 U.S.C . §§ 162(a ) a

n d 212. S e e 26 C .F.R . § 1.162-1(a ); Inland Asphalt C o. v . C omm’r , 756 F.2d 1425, 1427 (9th C ir. 1985). The Ta x C ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing M c M illa n’ s post-tria l
m otion to re o pe n t

he re c ord. Se e De v orev . C o mm’r , 963 F.2d 280, 282 (9th C ir. 1992) (pe r c uriam )
. AFFIRM E D.

3