Willard Michael Christine; Patricia Ethel Borgia v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLARD MICHAEL CHRISTINE;
PATRICIA ETHEL BORGIA,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-72997
Tax Ct. No. 15410-08
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Willard Michael Christine and Patricia Ethel Borgia appeal pro se from the
Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue’s (“CIR”) determination of a deficiency for tax year 2005. We
FILED
AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72997 2
have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review for clear error the Tax
Court’s determination that a taxpayer has not met his burden to substantiate a
deduction. Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). We
affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that petitioners failed to
produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate their entitlement to claimed deductions,
including those for expenses relating to travel, entertainment, a laptop computer,
dry cleaning, and a home office. See id. (taxpayer bears burden of showing right to
claimed deduction); see also 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) (permitting deduction of certain
“ordinary and necessary” business expenses); id. at §§ 274(d), 280F(d)(4)(A)(iv)
(setting forth substantiation requirements for claimed deductions for travel,
entertainment, and computer expenses); id. at § 280A(c)(1) (setting forth limited
business use exceptions to general prohibition on deductions with respect to
taxpayer’s residence).
Petitioners’ contentions concerning the allegedly unfair process they
received before the CIR and the Tax Court are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --