Case Name: Robert C. JACOBSEN; Carol S. Jacobsen, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 690 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 15-71608
Parties: Robert C. JACOBSEN; Carol S. Jacobsen, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 465–465

Head Matter:
Robert C. JACOBSEN; Carol S. Jacobsen, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-71608
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 25, 2017
Robert C. Jacobsen, Pro Se
Carol S. Jacobsen, Pro Se
Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert C. and Carol S. Jacobsen appeal pro se from the Tax Court's determination following a trial concerning an income tax deficiency and penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a) for tax year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We affirm.
The Jacobsens have waived their appeal of the Tax Court's determination of the tax deficiency by failing to address in their opening brief how the Tax Court erred in reaching its conclusions. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.