Larry R. Bradshaw v. Commissioiner of the Internal Revenue Service , 412 F. App'x 193 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12671 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JANUARY 5, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. 13462-09
LARRY R. BRADSHAW,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
llllllllllllllllll lllRespondent - Appellee.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
________________________
(January 5, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Larry R. Bradshaw, proceeding pro se, appeals the decision by the tax court
finding him liable for deficiencies in income tax for the years 2004, 2005, and
2006, as well as for penalties for his failure to file income tax returns and pay
estimated taxes. Bradshaw does not contest the tax itself, but nonetheless avers
that he should not be required to pay. After a thorough review of the record, we
reject this argument and affirm.
We review the decision of the tax court’s factual findings for clear error and
its legal conclusions de novo. Estate of Whitt v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 1548,
1556 (11th Cir. 1985). The Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency is
presumed correct and the taxpayer has the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that it is incorrect. Id. A taxpayer’s bank deposits provide prima
facia evidence of income, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the bank
deposits are not taxable income. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77
(1986).
Bradshaw concedes on appeal that the underlying tax is lawful, and
additionally he does not offer evidence disputing that he received the allegedly
taxable income. Accordingly, he has abandoned any claim of error with respect to
the tax court’s determination of the tax. See Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295,
1298 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered
abandoned.”). Instead, Bradshaw attacks the fairness and integrity of the IRS
2
officials who effected the tax as well as of the tax court that reviewed his
challenge. However, Mr. Bradshaw fails to support his significant assertions with
evidence. As such, we reject them, and affirm the decision of the tax court, which
properly concluded that Bradshaw has failed to adduce evidence disputing the
prima facia case established through his bank deposits. See Tokarski, 87 T.C. at
76.
For these reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3