[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13194

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

U.S. Tax Court No. 8386-12

MOHAMED MAWJI, FATEMA MAWJI,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER, IRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

________________________

(August 12, 2014)

Case: 13-13194 Date Filed: 08/12/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court that Mohamed Mawji and 

Fatema Mawji (taxpayers), petitioners-appellants, are liable for income tax 

deficiencies, and accuracy-related penalties, for their taxable years 2008 and 2009. 

The Tax Court entered its decision based on the proposed stipulation of facts 

submitted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner), respondentappellee. Tax Ct. R. 91(a).1

 

As the taxpayers did not participate in the stipulation process, the Tax Court 

deemed the facts and evidence established under Rule 91(f). Rule 91(f) prescribes 

the procedures to be followed when Aa party has refused or failed to confer with an 

adversary with respect to entering into a stipulation in accordance with this Rule 

[91].@ Tax Ct. R. 91(f)(1). It entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner.

 1 Rule 91(a)(1) states in relevant part:

 The parties are required to stipulate, to the fullest extent to which complete or 

qualified agreement can or fairly should be reached, all matters not privileged 

which are relevant to the pending case, regardless of whether such matters involve 

fact or opinion or the application of law to fact. Included in matters required to be 

stipulated are all facts, all documents and papers or contents or aspects thereof, 

and all evidence which fairly should not be in dispute. Where the truth or 

authenticity of facts or evidence claimed to be relevant by one party is not 

disputed, an objection on the ground of materiality or relevance may be noted by 

any other party but is not to be regarded as just cause for refusal to stipulate.

Tax Ct. R. 91(a).

Case: 13-13194 Date Filed: 08/12/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

We have carefully reviewed the record in this appeal. It is clear from the 

record that, almost flagrantly, the taxpayers failed to cooperate in the stipulation 

process. It is clear that the Commissioner made countless efforts to secure the 

taxpayers= cooperation; these efforts were either stonewalled or ignored. Tax Ct. 

R. 91. 

On the other hand, it is also clear from the record that the taxpayers neither 

filed nor asserted anything to indicate that they disagreed with the Commissioner=s 

proposed stipulation of facts. Also, it is clear that the taxpayers failed to make any 

offer of proof.2

 Tax Ct. R. 91(f).

Upon completion of our record review, and our consideration of the briefs 

and the arguments of counsel, we find no abuse of discretion, and we affirm the 

judgment of the Tax Court.

AFFIRMED. 

 2 Somewhat incredibly, the taxpayers appear to refer to a stipulation as a written 

statement of the evidence that they intend to offer at trial in support of their contested assertions. 

Case: 13-13194 Date Filed: 08/12/2014 Page: 3 of 3