FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH R. BANISTER, No. 09-70775
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 1356-06
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Joseph R. Banister appeals pro se from the tax court’s decision upholding
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of a deficiency and an
addition to tax in connection with unreported income for tax year 2002. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the tax court’s legal
*
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).
conclusions, and for clear error its findings of fact. Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d
1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The tax court properly upheld the tax determination because the
Commissioner presented the “minimal factual foundation” necessary to link
Banister to the receipt of unreported income, Palmer v. IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312
(9th Cir. 1997), and Banister failed to submit any evidence “showing that the
deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous,” Hardy, 181 F.3d at 1005.
The tax court properly upheld the late-filing addition to tax because Banister
did not file a tax return for 2002 or provide any evidence suggesting reasonable
cause for his failure to do so. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).
Banister’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-70775