From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. Comm'r

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 18, 2015
593 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 13-71034

02-18-2015

RALPH E. HOLMES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Tax Ct. No. 3769-10 MEMORANDUM Appeal from a Decision of the Tax Court Submitted February 13, 2015 Pasadena California Before: CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Ralph E. Holmes appeals from a Tax Court decision assessing deficiencies and penalties in connection with his returns for the years 2000 through 2004. Holmes challenges the Tax Court's finding that he was not entitled to defer recognition of gains pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1045. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482, and affirm.

1. We review the factual findings of the Tax Court for clear error. Boyd Gaming Corp. v. CIR, 177 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).

2. The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding Holmes had failed to establish that he acquired the shares of LeonardoMD, Inc. at original issue. Holmes's testimony on this point was contradictory, and at one point he said that he acquired the shares from company officers. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1045(b)(1), 1202(c)(1)(B); Ruark v. CIR, 449 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).

3. Nor did the Tax Court clearly err in finding Holmes's conclusory and uncorroborated testimony insufficient to establish that at least 80% of LeonardoMD assets were used in the active conduct of qualified trades or businesses. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1045(b)(1), 1202(c)(2)(A), (e)(1)(A); Geiger v. CIR, 440 F.2d 688, 689-90 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).

Because we affirm on these bases, we need not address Holmes's challenge to the Tax Court's finding that he failed to establish LeonardoMD did not have more than $50 million in gross assets. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1045(b)(1), 1202(d)(1).
--------

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Holmes v. Comm'r

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 18, 2015
593 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Holmes v. Comm'r

Case Details

Full title:RALPH E. HOLMES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 18, 2015

Citations

593 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

Mathews v. Comm'r

Moreover, conduct of the taxpayer, even though reprehensible, will not justify a finding of fraud unless the…

Kelly v. Comm'r

A taxpayer's education and sophistication are not themselves badges of fraud but are relevant factors in…