Bonnie Angle v. Cir , 699 F. App'x 703 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCT 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BONNIE J. ANGLE, No. 16-70939
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 29418-11
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
BONNIE J. ANGLE, No. 16-70941
Petitioner-Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 435-12 L
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted October 16, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT,***
District Judge.
Petitioner Bonnie J. Angle appeals the U.S. Tax Court’s denial of reasonable
litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §§
7430(f), 7482(a)(1), and we affirm.
Litigation costs must be denied if Angle failed to establish that her net worth
did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time her action was filed. 26 U.S.C. §
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B)). Angle filed for relief as
an innocent spouse on December 23, 2011. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015.
The evidence shows that Angle’s net worth exceeded $2,000,000 at the time
of filing. Net worth is calculated according to generally accepted accounting
principles, and assets are valued at their acquisition cost. Am. Pac. Concrete Pipe
Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 788 F.2d 586, 590-91 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. 88.88
Acres of Land, 907 F.2d 106, 107 (9th Cir. 1990). At the time of filing, Angle’s
assets included $3,508,009.47 owed to her on loans she had made to two
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
2
corporations. Only by valuing these loans at $838,140 did Angle’s accountant
conclude that her net worth did not exceed $2,000,000. Angle argues that the
remaining loan amount of $2,669,869.47 is worthless, but the evidence does not
support this. Angle also argues that the Tax Court was bound to accept the
conclusions of her accountant, but the accountant neither audited nor attempted to
verify the documents he relied upon in reaching these conclusions.
We decline to address Angle’s argument that she satisfied the “prevailing
party” requirement because she has failed to meet the net worth requirement.
AFFIRMED.
3