Court Opinion

ID: 9380609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 18:00:31.977624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.367038
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDY LEE ROWE; SYLVIA MARIE                    Nos. 21-71308
ROWE,                                                21-71310

                Petitioners-Appellants,         IRS Nos. 6432-20
                                                         7592-20
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              United States Tax Court

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Sandy Lee Rowe and Sylvia Marie Rowe appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s

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

Revenue’s determination of deficiencies for tax years 2017 and 2018. We have

jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax

      *
             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).
Court’s determination that a taxpayer has not met his burden to substantiate a

deduction. Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). We

affirm.

      The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that the Rowes failed to

produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate their entitlement to claimed deductions

related to business expenses for tax years 2017 and 2018. See Norgaard v.

Comm’r, 939 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1991) (the taxpayer carries the burden of

establishing entitlement to a deduction); see also 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) (permitting

deduction of certain “ordinary and necessary” business expenses); id. § 274(d)

(setting forth substantiation requirements for claimed deductions for travel,

entertainment, and meal expenses). Contrary to the Rowes’ contention, the Tax

Court did not err by requiring them to justify their business expenses for tax year

2018, as they admitted they were seeking a deduction for business expenses rather

than their initial request for a qualified business income deduction.

      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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     21-71308
                                                                                21-71310