Rodolfo Velasquez 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 and, therefore, denies Velasquez’s request for oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO VELASQUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-72290
Tax Ct. No. 2547-10
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision
determining an income tax deficiency of $2,156 for tax year 2006. We have
jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the Tax Court’s
FILED
JUL 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72290 2
conclusions of law. Biehl v. Comm’r, 351 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The Tax Court correctly determined the deficiency because, contrary to
Velasquez’s contention, the deductions attributable to renting the home where
Velasquez also resided were properly limited to the gross income derived from that
rental activity. See 26 U.S.C. § 280A(c)(5); Bolton v. Comm’r, 694 F.2d 556, 558
(9th Cir. 1982) (“[Section 280A(c)(5)] provides first that deductions allowed for
expenses attributed to rental of the unit (i.e. deductions of any kind – maintenance,
taxes, interest) cannot exceed an amount equal to the amount of gross rental
income received from the property for that year[.]”)
Velasquez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --