Peter C. Bronson; Carolyn P. Bronson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER C. BRONSON; CAROLYN P.
BRONSON,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-72342
Tax Ct. No. 26463-08
MEMORANDUM*
PETER C. BRONSON; CAROLYN P.
BRONSON,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-72343
Tax Ct. No. 17478-08
Appeals from Decisions of the
United States Tax Court
FILED
FEB 3 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Peter C. Bronson, an attorney, and Carolyn P. Bronson appeal pro se from
the Tax Court’s decisions, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for tax years 2001-05,
and liability for an understatement penalty in tax years 2004 and 2005. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
legal conclusions, Ann Jackson Family Found. v. Comm’r, 15 F.3d 917, 920 (9th
Cir. 1994), and for clear error its factual determinations, Hansen v. Comm’r, 471
F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that the preponderance of
the evidence showed that the Bronsons were not engaged in horse-training and
breeding activity for profit within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 183. See Comm’r v.
Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987) (“[T]o be engaged in a trade or business, . . .
the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or
profit.”); see also Hansen, 471 F.3d at 1028 (Tax Court’s weighing of the evidence
will be upheld unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
12-72342 2

-- 2 of 3 --

been committed” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Tax Court did not clearly err by imposing an accuracy-related penalty
for the Bronsons’ underpayment of tax due to their substantial understatement of
income tax. See 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a), (b)(2) (authorizing penalty equal to 20% of
the underpayment for, among other things, a substantial understatement of income
tax); id. § 6662(d)(1)(A) (defining substantial understatement).
AFFIRMED.
12-72342 3

-- 3 of 3 --