655 Fed.Appx. 583 (9th Cir. 2016), 14-70487, Obedin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Docket Nº:14-70487
Citation:655 Fed.Appx. 583
Party Name:HARRY E. OBEDIN and NEALE P. OBEDIN, Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee
Attorney:For HARRY E. OBEDIN, NEALE P. OBEDIN, Petitioner - Appellants: Arthur Boelter, Boelter & Associates, Seattle, WA. For COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee: Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC; Robert ...
Judge Panel:Before: TASHIMA and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges and KOBAYASHI,[***] District Judge.
Case Date:July 21, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 583

655 Fed.Appx. 583 (9th Cir. 2016)

HARRY E. OBEDIN and NEALE P. OBEDIN, Petitioners - Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee

No. 14-70487

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 21, 2016

July 8, 2016, [**] Submitted, Seattle, Washington

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from a Decision of the Tax Court. Tax Ct. No. 10707-10.

AFFIRMED.

For HARRY E. OBEDIN, NEALE P. OBEDIN, Petitioner - Appellants: Arthur Boelter, Boelter & Associates, Seattle, WA.

For COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee: Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC; Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC; Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sherra Wong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, DC.

Before: TASHIMA and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges and KOBAYASHI,[***] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Appellants Harry and Neale Obedin appeal from the decision of the tax court imposing deficiencies and underpayment penalties in connection with Appellants' 2014 and 2015 tax returns. We affirm.

1. We review tax court decisions as we review district court civil bench trial decisions, reviewing factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Xilinx, Inc. v. Comm'r, 598 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 2010).

2. Taxpayers claiming a net operating loss deduction must establish both the existence of the loss and the amount that may be carried over to the years in question. United States v. Olympic Radio & Tel., Inc., 349 U.S. 232, 235, 75 S.Ct. 733, 99 L.Ed. 1024, 131 Ct.Cl. 814, 1951 C.B. 376, 1955-1 C.B. 376 (1955). A taxpayer must file a concise statement of the amount of the net operating loss deduction and a detailed schedule showing its computation. 26 C.F.R. § 1.172-1(c).

On their 2004 return, Appellants claimed a net operating loss of $208,195, but failed to attach the required concise statement...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP