NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOAN THOMASSEN, Deceased; MARK No. 11-73458
D. THOMASSEN, Special Administrator,
Tax Ct. No. 21803-06
Petitioners - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Joseph H. Gale, Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Joan Thomassen1 appeals from the Tax Court’s denial of her petition for
redetermination of federal income tax liabilities for 1964 to 1971. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a), and we affirm.
Thomassen argues that the Tax Court clearly erred in denying her Innocent
Spouse Relief under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 6015 for two particular
years, 1966 and 1971, because it found she did not file joint tax returns in those
years.
Under IRC § 1615(b)(1)(A), the taxpayer bears the burden of showing that
the “couple filed a joint return.” Ordlock v. Comm’r., 533 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th
Cir. 2008). Lacking copies of her tax returns for 1966 and 1971, Thomassen
attempts to make this showing by inference, arguing that her typical filing of joint
returns in the other years for which she sought Innocent Spouse Relief
demonstrates that the same held true for 1966 and 1971. Thomassen fails to
substantiate this inference. To the contrary, a certified copy of the transcript of
account for her husband Dr. Thomassen’s 1966 income tax return states his filing
status as “single,” a Tax Court order from 1975 held Dr. Thomassen separately
liable for deficiencies and additions to tax for 1966, and two notices of deficiency
1
Joan Thomassen is now deceased, and Mark Thomassen, the special
administrator of her estate, has been substituted as a proper party.
2
were issued for 1971, in different amounts and with one to “taxpayer” and one to
Dr. Thomassen. In light of this evidence, the Tax Court did not clearly err in
finding that Thomassen failed to show that she filed joint tax returns in 1966 and
1971.
AFFIRMED.
3