Case Name: David R. MILLS and Morena I. Mills, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-22
Citations: 444 F. App'x 951
Docket Number: No. 09-72165
Parties: David R. MILLS and Morena I. Mills, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 951–952

Head Matter:
David R. MILLS and Morena I. Mills, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-72165.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 22, 2011.
David R. Mills, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Morena I. Mills, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Sara Ann Ketchum, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
David R. Mills and Morena I. Mills appeal pro se from the Tax Court's decision sustaining a notice of federal income tax deficiency for tax years 2004 and 2005 and imposing a penalty. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court's conclusions of law and for clear error its factual findings. Smith v. Comm'r, 300 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly sustained the Internal Revenue Services' deficiency determinations based on the Mills' original returns. See Fayeghi v. Comm'r, 211 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.2000) (IRS may, as a matter of internal administration, decide to accept amended returns for limited purposes, but it is not statutorily required to do so, or to treat amended return as superseding an original return).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
The Mills' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.