Court Opinion

ID: 2965227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:32.933533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:06.268427
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 97-1778

                                 TERENCE M. BENNETT,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                          ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE

                               UNITED STATES TAX COURT

                     [Hon. Robert P. Ruwe, U.S. Tax Court Judge]
                                           ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                        Coffin and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                        _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Peter D.  Anderson, with whom  Scott H. Harris and  McLane, Graf,
             __________________             _______________      _____________
        Raulerson & Middleton, P.A. were on brief for appellant.
        ___________________________
             Michelle  B.  O'Connor,  Attorney,  Tax Division,  Department  of
             ______________________
        Justice, with whom Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, and
                           __________________
        Gilbert  S. Rothenberg, Attorney, Tax Division, Department of Justice,
        ______________________
        were on brief for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________
                                  
                                        
                                  FEBRUARY 25, 1998
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.   Petitioner Terence M. Bennett challenges
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          a United  States Tax Court  ruling rejecting his request  for the

          redetermination of a tax deficiency resulting from his receipt of

          the proceeds from the sale  of five antique automobiles.  Bennett
                                                                    _______

          v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M.  (CCH) 2389 (1997).  In the  Tax Court
             ____________

          Bennett   maintained  that  some  Saudi  friends  had  owned  the

          vehicles,  sold them, then loaned him the  proceeds.  See Webb v.
                                                                ___ ____

          Commissioner, 15 F.3d 203, 205 (1st Cir. 1994) ( [B]ona fide loan
          ____________                                      _____ ____

          proceeds  are not gross income to the borrower. ).  On appeal, he

          maintains  that the  burden of  proving  a deficiency  assessment

          predicated   on   unreported   income   should  rest   with   the

          Commissioner, not the taxpayer.

                    Bennett concedes, however, as he must, that  the law in

          this circuit is to the  contrary, see Delaney v. Commissioner, 99
                                            ___ _______    ____________

          F.3d 20, 23  (1st Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Rexach, 482
                                               _____________    ______

          F.2d 10, 16  (1st Cir. 1973)), and  that other courts of  appeals

          permit  such burden-shifting only if the deficiency assessment is

          manifestly  arbitrary and  capricious or  devoid  of a  plausible

          factual predicate  for linking the  taxpayer to the  income, see,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128, 1132-33  (5th Cir.
          ____  ________    ____________

          1991).  Accordingly, the contention urged on appeal devolves into

          a  claim that  the Tax  Court s meticulous  findings of  fact are

          clearly erroneous.  See  Crowley v. Commissioner, 962 F.2d  1077,
                              ___  _______    ____________

          1080 (1st Cir. 1992).

                    In support, Bennett simply points  to inconclusive bits

          of evidence which might be considered indicia of a bona fide loan
                                                             ____ ____

                                          2

          transaction, at the same time  downplaying a mountain of evidence

            including his  own admissions   that he owned  the vehicles and
                           ___ __________

          deliberately structured the  transaction to avoid taxes.   "Where

          there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's

          choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous."  Id.  
                                                             ___

                    Affirmed, see Local Rule 27.1.   The parties shall bear
                    Affirmed, see Local Rule 27.1.   The parties shall bear
                    ________  ___________________    ______________________

          their own costs.  SO ORDERED.
          their own costs.  SO ORDERED.
          _______________   __________

                                          3