FILED
MAR 08 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS W. SMITH, No. 09-71966
Petitioner, Tax Ct. Nos. 10907-08
21318-08
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL MEMORANDUM *
REVENUE,
Respondent.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges.
Carlos W. Smith appeals pro se from the tax court’s order following a bench
trial upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s deficiencies and penalties
for tax years 2005 and 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).
*
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).
We review de novo the tax court’s legal conclusions, and for clear error its factual
findings. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The tax court properly upheld Smith’s tax deficiencies because he did not
substantiate his claimed deductions with any evidence despite being given
numerous opportunities to do so. See Norgaard v. Comm’r, 939 F.2d 874, 877 (9th
Cir. 1991) (the taxpayer carries the burden of establishing entitlement to a
deduction).
The tax court properly upheld Smith’s penalties because he failed to meet
his burden of showing that the underpayment was not a result of negligence. See
26 U.S.C. § 6662(a); Pahl v. Comm’r, 150 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998).
Smith’s contentions that he was retaliated against are unavailing. See Karme
v. Comm’r, 673 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1982) (courts will look behind the
deficiency notice to determine the Commissioner’s motives only in extremely rare
cases involving unconstitutional conduct).
Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-71966