James v. Commissioner , 475 F. App'x 158 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           JUL 26 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    MEGAN JAMES,                                     No. 08-72346
    Petitioner - Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 5128-06
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted July 17, 2012 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    Megan James appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment
    upholding the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief for tax years 2000-2004.
    We have jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a). We review de novo. Miller v.
    *
    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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Comm’r, 
    310 F.3d 640
    , 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
    The Tax Court properly determined that James failed to qualify for innocent
    spouse relief because she did not file any valid joint returns. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 6065
    (“Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement,
    or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue
    laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is
    made under the penalties of perjury.”); Ordlock v. Comm’r, 
    533 F.3d 1136
    , 1139
    (9th Cir. 2008) (“To qualify for innocent spouse relief, the taxpayer must show that
    the couple filed a joint return, that the return contained an understatement
    attributable to ‘erroneous items’ of the other spouse, and that in signing the return,
    the ‘innocent spouse’ did not know or have reason to know of the understatement.”
    (emphasis added)).
    James’s remaining contentions, including those concerning duress and
    estoppel, are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    08-72346
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-72346

Citation Numbers: 475 F. App'x 158

Judges: Schroeder, Silverman, Thomas

Filed Date: 7/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023