United States v. 2020-09-16 | 19-70304 | DARRELL ARCHER V. CIR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRELL ARCHER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 19-70304
19-70305

Tax Ct. Nos. 10444-16
12414-16

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeals from Decisions of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Darrell Archer appeals pro se from the Tax
Court’s decisions, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue’s determination of deficiencies, penalties, and an addition to tax for tax
years 2013 and 2014. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

SEP 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-70304 & 19-70305
review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual
findings. Meruelo v. Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that Archer failed to provide sufficient
evidence of his claimed deductions to shift the burden of proof to the
Commissioner to disprove his claimed deductions. 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1), (2) (if
a taxpayer introduces credible evidence, has complied with the requirements to
substantiate a deduction, maintained all the required records, and cooperated with
the Commissioner’s request, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to disprove the
claimed deduction).
The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Archer failed to
produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to deductions related to
business expenses, home office expenses, rental property losses, and charitable
contributions. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 162(a) (business expenses), 170(a) (charitable
contributions), 274(d) (travel, meals and vehicle expenses), 280A (home office
expenses); 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.170A-1(c) (charitable contributions), 1.170A-13(a) and
(b) (charitable contributions), 1.274-5T (travel, meals and vehicle expenses);
Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n income tax
deduction is a matter of legislative grace and . . . the burden of clearly showing the
right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).

3 19-70304 & 19-70305
The Tax Court did not clearly err in imposing penalties and an addition to
tax against Archer for filing an untimely tax return for 2014 and for inaccurately
reporting his income for tax years 2013 and 2014. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1)
(addition to tax appropriate when taxpayer fails to file timely taxes unless such
failure was due to reasonable cause, not willful neglect), 6662(a), (b) (imposing
accuracy-related penalty for negligence, disregard of rules or regulations, or
substantial understatement of income tax); see also United States v. Boyle, 469
U.S. 241, 245 (1985) (for purposes of § 6651(a)(1), reasonable cause refers to the
exercise of ordinary business care and prudence which nevertheless results in the
failure to file a timely tax return; willful neglect refers to “conscious, intentional
failure or reckless indifference”); Dieringer v. Comm’r, 917 F.3d 1135, 1145 (9th
Cir. 2019) (standard of review and definition of negligence under § 6662(a)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time in the
reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.