T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E VA N E . P E L I KA N; DE B OR AH A. P E L I KA N, P et i t i o n ers - A p p el l an t s, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF I NT E RNA L RE VENU E, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 70482 C I R N o. 7607- 06 ME MOR AN DU M *

A ppe a l f r om aD e c i s i on of

the U ni t ed S t at es T ax C ou rt S ubm i tt e d M a y24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S tev an E . an d D eb o ra h A . P elik an ap p ea l p ro se fr o m th e T ax C o u rt’s deci si on af

t era tri al up ho l di ng the deni al of i nn ocentspou se re l i ef t o S t evan un der 2 6 U .S .C . § 6 0 1 5 ( b ) a n d ( f ) f r o m jo in t liab ilityf

o rta x d e f

ic ie n c ie s in 1 9 9 9 . W e 

# FI LED JU N 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70482 2 have j uri sdi ct i on un der 26 U . S . C . § 7 48 2(a) (1). W e r evi ew for c l ear e rr or the T ax C ou rt ’ s f i nd i ng thatS t evan i s notent i t l ed t o i nn ocentspou se re l i ef un der § 6 0 1 5 ( b ) . W

iks el l v. C om m ’r , 90 F . 3d 1459, 1461 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . W e r e vi e w de novo the T a x C ourt ’ s de c i s i on w he the rthe C om m i s s i one rof I nt e rna l R e ve nue ab u s e d h is d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g e q u itab le r e lie f u n d e r§ 6 0 1 5 ( f

) . Fargo v. C om m ’r , 4 4 7 F .3 d 7 0 6 , 7 0 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; U ni te d State s v . W

as hi ngton , 157 F . 3d 6 3 0 , 6 4 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e T a x C o u rt d id n o t c le a r lye rrb yf in d in g th a t S te v a n w a s n o t e n title d to i nn ocentspou se re l i ef

un der § 60 15 (b) bec ause there w as evi dence s ho w i ng that the un ders t at em entof t ax w as no tsol el y a ttri bu t abl e t o D eborah, thatS t evan kn ew o rh a d r e a s o n to k n o w o f th e u n d e r s ta te m e n t, a n d th a t it w o u ld n o t b e in e q u itab le t o h o l d S t ev an l i ab l e fo r th e d efi ci en cy. See 26 U . S . C . § 6 01 5(b); O rdlock v . C om m ’r , 533 F . 3d 1136, 1139 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( r e qui r e m e nt s t o qua l i f yf ori nnoc e nt spou se re l i ef

un der § 60 15 (b)) . C on traryt o the P el i kans’ cont ent i on , the st andard s e tf orth i n C ulve r v . C om m iss i on er , 1 1 6 T . C . 1 8 9 (2 0 0 1 ), i s i n ap p l i cab l e, b ecau se C u lver concerns § 601 5(c) , and S t evan st i pu l at ed thathe w as no tent i t l ed t o rel i ef unde rtha ts e c t i on. T h e T a x C o u rt p r o p e r lyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e C o m m is s io n e rd id n o t ab u s e h is d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g S te v a n e q u itab le r e lie f u n d e r§ 6 0 1 5 ( f

) . See 2 6 U . S. C.08- 70482 3 § 6015( f ) ; R e v. P r oc . 2003- 61 § 4. 03( 2) ( none xc l us i ve l i s tof f a c t or s f or det erm i ni ng w hether t o g rantequi t abl e r el i ef un der § 60 15 (f

)) . W e do notc ons i de rw he the rthe T a x C ourte rr e d bys us t a i ni ng the ne gl i ge nc e pe na l ty i m pos e d unde r26 U . S . C . § 6662 be c aus e the i s s ue w a s not r a is e d in th e o p e n in g b r ie f . See Fri ends of

Y osem i te V

al leyv. Kem

ptho rne, 520 F . 3d 1024, 1033 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( de e m i ng w a i ve d i s s ue s notr a i s e d i n the ope ni ng bri ef ). T he P el i kans’ re m ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.