Court Opinion

ID: 9374696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 19:00:37.290574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.536881
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMILLAH KAMILLAH MUHAMMAD,                     No. 21-71307

                Petitioner-Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 7296-20

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                           Appeal from a Decision of the
                             United States Tax Court

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Jamillah Kamillah Muhammad appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s

decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue’s (“IRS”) determination of a deficiency for tax year 2016. We have

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Hardy v. Comm’r,

181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

      The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency

determination because the Commissioner presented some evidence that

Muhammad failed to report income, and Muhammad did not submit any relevant

evidence showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 61(a) (defining gross income as “all income from whatever source derived”);

Hardy, 181 F.3d at 1004-05 (“If the Commissioner introduces some evidence that

the taxpayer received unreported income, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show

by a preponderance of the evidence that the deficiency was arbitrary or

erroneous.”); see also Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 409 (9th Cir. 1990)

(recognizing that this court has rejected multiple variations of the “wages are not

income” argument).

      The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. See

Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 539-40 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth

standard of review and explaining that “this circuit as well as other circuits have

held that official IRS documents, even if generated by a computer, are admissible

as public records.”).

      We reject as unsupported by the record Muhammad’s contentions that her

                                          2                                    21-71307
due process rights were violated or that the Tax Court was biased against her.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                                   21-71307