WILLIAM J. LICHA; ALICIA T. LICHA, AKA Alicia Tovar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM J. LICHA; ALICIA T. LICHA,
AKA Alicia Tovar,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-72170
Tax Ct. No. 14382-08
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William J. Licha and Alicia T. Licha, a.k.a. Alicia Tovar, appeal pro se from
the Tax Court’s decision, entered after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue’s deficiency determination and accuracy-related penalties for
FILED
DEC 03 2014
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

tax years 2001 through 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We
review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of
fact, Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the deficiency determination because the
Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that the Lichas failed to
report income and capital gains for the tax years at issue, and the Lichas did not
submit any relevant evidence “showing that the deficienc[ies] w[ere] arbitrary or
erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
We reject as unsupported by law or evidence the Lichas’ contentions that the
Tax Court and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have no authority to
determine deficiencies, the IRS’s failure to include “OMB Control Numbers” on
various documents relieves the Lichas of their duty to pay federal income taxes, the
IRS improperly denied their Freedom of Information Act requests, and the tax
court judge was biased against them.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including any challenge to the Tax Court’s accuracy-related
penalties. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
12-72170 2

-- 2 of 2 --