Daniel Hugh O’connor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL HUGH O’CONNOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-71413
Tax Ct. No. 7234-11
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Hugh O’Connor appeals pro se from a decision of the Tax Court
denying his petition challenging a deficiency in his 2008 income tax. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s
legal conclusions, and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm’r,
FILED
JUN 30 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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s determination of
deficiency because the amount paid to O’Connor for his participation in a medical
research study was not excludable from his gross income as a gift or as
compensation for his injuries or sickness. See 26 U.S.C. § 61 (broadly defining
gross income); Comm’r v. Dunkin, 500 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“[E]xclusions from gross income are construed narrowly in favor of taxation.”);
see also Comm’r v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 337 (1995) (a taxpayer may only
exclude amounts under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2), as compensation for physical
injuries or physical sickness, when the taxpayer demonstrates, among other things,
that the payment was received on account of personal physical injury or physical
sickness); Comm’r v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 286 (1960) (“A gift in the
statutory sense . . . proceeds from a detached and disinterested generosity, . . . out
of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
We reject O’Connor’s contentions concerning his right to privacy, his Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the alleged lack of
jurisdiction of this court, the Tax Court, and the Internal Revenue Service.
AFFIRMED.
13-71413 2

-- 2 of 2 --