Case Name: David ALTMAN; Beverly Altman, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-27
Citations: 469 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 09-70936
Parties: David ALTMAN; Beverly Altman, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, COWEN , and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 565–569

Head Matter:
David ALTMAN; Beverly Altman, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 09-70936.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2011.
Filed Feb. 27, 2012.
David Altman, Menlo Park, CA, pro se.
Beverly Altman, Menlo Park, CA, pro se.
John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John A. Dudeck, Jr., Esquire, Anthony T. Sheehan, Esquire, Steven Ki-yoto Uejio, Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, COWEN , and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dr. David Altman and Beverly Altman appeal an order of the United States Tax Court holding them liable for negligently claiming a loss on their 1982 tax return. The Altmans had invested in a project of CAL-NEVA Partners, a Nevada limited partnership involved in growing jojoba beans. The tax court found the Altmans negligent in claiming the tax loss.
We reverse. The tax court clearly erred in concluding that Dr. Altman's own thorough investigation was insufficient to permit him to make a reasonable decision that the project had some fair prospect of profitability. And the tax court clearly erred in concluding that Dr. Altman's consultation with Mr. Mohler, and his related conduct in claiming the deduction, was inadequate. See Sacks v. Commissioner, 82 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1996).
Because the tax court's determinations regarding the Altmans' negligence are not supported by the record, we reverse its holding that the Altmans were negligent within the meaning of former § 6658(a) of the Internal Revenue Code for claiming a loss relating to their investment in CAL-NEVA. The decision ordering additions to tax totaling $82,596 is therefore REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.