Case Name: Khen T. HUYNH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-01
Citations: 276 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 06-75806
Parties: Khen T. HUYNH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
Khen T. HUYNH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-75806.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 1, 2008.
Khen T. Huynh, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Robert R. Di Trolio, Washington, DC, Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, Eileen J. O’Connor, Esq., Bethany B. Hauser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Khen T. Huynh appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision upholding the denial of relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015 from joint liability with her husband for tax deficiencies in 1996 and 1997. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax Court's factual findings, including the determination that Huynh is not entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015. See Guth v. Comm'r, 897 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1990) (reviewing claim for relief under predecessor statute). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Huynh meaningfully participated in prior proceedings concerning her tax liability for 1996 and 1997 given that she prepared the tax returns, signed documents, participated in pretrial preparations and settlement negotiations, and testified on the substance of the tax matters at the prior trial. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015(g)(2).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.