Peymon Mottahedeh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEYMON MOTTAHEDEH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 19-71432
Tax Ct. No. 22039-11
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Peymon Mottahedeh appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision,
following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s
determination of income tax deficiencies and additions for the tax years 2001 to
2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71432
Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Hardy
v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency
determination because the Commissioner presented some evidence that
Mottahedeh failed to report income, and Mottahedeh did not submit evidence
showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous. See id. at 1004-05 (“If the
Commissioner introduces some evidence that the taxpayer received unreported
income, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.”).
We do not consider whether the Tax Court erred in sustaining additions for
failure to file timely tax returns, failure to pay taxes, or failure to pay estimated
income taxes because Mottahedeh did not address these issues in his opening brief.
See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s
opening brief.”).
We reject as meritless Mottahedeh’s contentions that his due process rights
were violated.
The motion to withdraw as counsel for appellee (Docket Entry No. 61) is
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --