From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. C.I.R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 4, 2004
92 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2004)

Opinion

Argued and Submitted March 12, 2004.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court, Special Trial Judge Couvillion, Presiding. Tax Ct. No. 17068-99.

Dennis M. McDevitt, Esq., Matthew M. Pribyl, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Charles S. Casazza, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, Benjamin C. Sanchez, Regional Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, San Francisco, CA, Richard W. Skillman, Gary R. Allen, Esq., Frank P. Cihlar, Attorney, Teresa Milton, aus, Angelo G. Spenillo, Attorney, Eileen J. O'Connor, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.


Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Domingo A. Lopez appeals the tax court's imposition of penalties for negligence and substantial understatement of tax. We affirm. The tax court permissibly concluded that Lopez failed to show that his reliance on the advice of his tax attorney, Denis McDevitt, was reasonable. McDevitt testified that he did not "endorse" the investment, and it is unclear whether Lopez even asked him to perform a thorough review. Additionally, the offering documents clearly warned that the investments carried high tax risks. Accordingly, we affirm.

See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6653, 6661 (1982).

We review the tax court's findings for clear error. Allen v. Comm'r, 925 F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Lopez v. C.I.R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 4, 2004
92 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2004)
Case details for

Lopez v. C.I.R.

Case Details

Full title:Domingo A. LOPEZ, Petitioner--Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 4, 2004

Citations

92 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2004)