From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loomis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 28, 2022
No. 21-71064 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022)

Opinion

21-71064

10-28-2022

JAMES W. LOOMIS; JANICE K. USHER, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted October 18, 2022 San Francisco, California

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court No. 8739-09

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Petitioners-Appellants James W. Loomis and Janice K. Usher (Taxpayers) appeal the United States Tax Court's grant of summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (Commissioner) determination of a deficiency for the 2003 tax year. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and arguments, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the Tax Court's conclusions of law de novo and questions of fact for clear error. Gardner v. Comm'r, 845 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

A presumption of correctness generally attaches to notices of deficiency made by the Commissioner, and "the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous." Cooper v. Comm'r, 877 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2017).

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner's deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented "some substantive evidence" that Taxpayers failed to report income, and Taxpayers did not submit any relevant evidence "showing that the deficiency was arbitrary and erroneous." Hardy v. Comm'r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 1999). The substantive evidence here came from Taxpayers' transaction documents outlining a "loan" which the Tax Court held was a sale. Taxpayers offer no credible argument on why we should depart from this conclusion. We also reject as meritless Taxpayers' contention that the record was insufficient to decide the matter before the Tax Court. Taxpayers have not specified what was erroneous about the findings made by the Tax Court or which element essential to that court's conclusion required further findings. Furthermore, Taxpayers offer no support for their argument that their deferral of gain under section 1042 failed because of the subsequent transaction with WITCO.

Taxpayers failed to raise in the Tax Court the fraudulent conversion argument they seek to present to us. We generally do "not decide issues that the trial court did not decide." See CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Grp., LLC, 46 F.4th 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 2022). That argument has been forfeited.

AFFIRMED

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.


Summaries of

Loomis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 28, 2022
No. 21-71064 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022)
Case details for

Loomis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:JAMES W. LOOMIS; JANICE K. USHER, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 28, 2022

Citations

No. 21-71064 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022)