Oros v. Commissioner , 551 F. App'x 340 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 31 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL S. OROS,                                 No. 12-71071
    Petitioner - Appellant,           Tax Ct. No. 19400-09
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from a Decision of the
    United States Tax Court
    Submitted December 17, 2013**
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Michael S. Oros appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a
    bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of an
    income tax deficiency for tax year 2006. We have jurisdiction under 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
    (a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and for clear
    *
    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).
    error the Tax Court’s factual determinations. Kelley v. Comm’r, 
    45 F.3d 348
    , 350
    (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
    The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Oros failed to produce
    sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to claimed travel-related
    business deductions because Oros did not show that he was in the trade or business
    of being a book author. See 
    26 U.S.C. § 162
    (a) (taxpayer may deduct expenses for
    carrying on a “trade or business”); Comm’r v. Groetzinger, 
    480 U.S. 23
    , 35 (1987)
    (“[T]o be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be involved in the
    activity with continuity and regularity and . . . the taxpayer’s primary purpose for
    engaging in the activity must be for income or profit. A sporadic activity, a hobby,
    or an amusement diversion does not qualify.”); Sparkman v. Comm’r, 
    509 F.3d 1149
    , 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (taxpayer bears burden of showing right to claimed
    deduction).
    We reject Oros’s contentions regarding conduct by Internal Revenue Service
    officials because it is irrelevant to the Tax Court’s determination.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    12-71071
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-71071

Citation Numbers: 551 F. App'x 340

Judges: Goodwin, Graber, Wallace

Filed Date: 12/31/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023