LLANOS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-29No. No. 20-70360

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Tax Court's decision upholding the Commissioner's deficiency determination and penalties.

William Llanos appealed a Tax Court decision that upheld the Internal Revenue Service's determination that he owed income tax deficiencies and penalties for 2014. Llanos argued on appeal that the burden of proof should have shifted to the Commissioner and that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction, among other contentions. The appeals court found that the Commissioner had presented sufficient evidence of unreported income, that Llanos failed to meet the statutory requirements for shifting the burden of proof, and that the Tax Court properly upheld the penalties for failing to file a valid return and pay taxes.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's finding of unreported income
Whether the burden of proof should have shifted to the Commissioner
Whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction based on a valid notice of deficiency
Whether penalties for failure to file and pay were properly imposed

Procedural posture

Llanos appealed pro se from a Tax Court bench trial decision that upheld the Commissioner's income tax deficiency determination and penalties for tax year 2014.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

William A. Llanos appeals pro se from the Tax Courts decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenues determination of income tax deficiencies and penalties for tax year 2014. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Courts legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Hardy v. Commr, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioners deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Llanos failed to report income, and Llanos did not demonstrate “that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Id. at 1004-05. We reject as meritless Llanoss contention that the Tax Court should have shifted the burden of proof to the Commissioner. See id.; see also 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (requirements for shifting burden of proof to Commissioner)

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioners additions to taxes for Llanoss failure to file a valid tax return and to pay taxes as set forth in the substitute for return. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1), (a)(2) (providing for additions to tax where taxpayer fails, without reasonable cause, to file a timely tax return or to pay the taxes due); see also id. § 6020(b)(2) (any substitute for return “made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes”); id. § 6651(g)(2) (any return made by the Secretary under § 6020(b) “shall be treated as the return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of determining the amount of the addition” under § 6651(a)(2)).

Contrary to Llanoss contention, the Tax Court had jurisdiction because the Commissioner mailed a valid notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; Scar v. Commr, 814 F.2d 1363, 1366-70 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing requirements for valid notice of deficiency such that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tax Court).

We reject as without merit Llanoss contention that the Tax Court erred by refusing to address Llanoss tax avoidance arguments or by referring to them as “tax defier” arguments.

AFFIRMED.