Unpublished Disposition, 895 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Willard M. CHRISTINE and Dianne M. Christine, Petitioners-Appellants,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 1990.* Decided Feb. 9, 1990.
Before CANBY, BRUNETTI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Willard M. and Dianne M. Christine petition pro se for review of the tax court's order sustaining the Commissioner's determination of deficiencies in the Christines' income tax for tax year 1982.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We affirm.
On their joint income tax return for 1982, the Christines reported income in the amount of $1,768.57 earned on a Dreyfus Liquid Assets account in the Christines' joint name. Christine claims that the money in the Dreyfus account was his mother's, that he was only managing the funds for her, and that it was therefore not taxable as income to the Christines. He states that he mistakenly reported the income on the Christines' joint tax return, and that his mother should have reported it instead.
The presumption of correctness attaching to the Commissioner's deficiency determination requires the taxpayer to come forward with enough evidence to support a finding contrary to the Commissioner's determination. See Rockwell v. CIR, 512 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 1975).
The tax court found that the petitioners did not sustain their position that the income in the Dreyfus account was not taxable to them. Christine admitted that the account was listed jointly in his and his wife's names. Christine was unable to identify the origin of certain sums deposited into the Dreyfus account, and he acknowledged that some of the money in the account was his. Christine presented no evidence to verify that any part of the income, much less all of the income in the Dreyfus account, belonged to his mother. Therefore, Christine failed to come forward with enough evidence to sustain a finding contrary to the Commissioner's determination that the income was taxable to the Christines. See Rockwell, 512 F.2d at 885.
Christine's contention that the tax court erred in denying his request to call counsel for the Commissioner as an expert witness in the field of tax law also lacks merit. A party who intends to call an expert witness must submit a written report prepared by the witness to the tax court and to the opposing party. See TC Rule 143(f) (1). There is no evidence in the record that Christine submitted such a report. Therefore, the tax court did not err in denying Christine's request to call Commissioner's counsel as an expert witness. Id.2
The petition is DENIED as to Willard M. Christine.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3
The failure of a taxpayer appearing pro se to sign the notice of appeal from a decision of a tax court requires dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Dianne M. Christine failed to sign the notice of appeal, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed as to her. See id
Christine contends that the IRS should be placed in default because counsel for the Commissioner filed an untimely trial memorandum pursuant to a motion to file out of time. Although formal exceptions to rulings and orders of the tax court are unnecessary, a party should make his objections, and grounds for objections known to the tax court. See TC Rule 144. In addition, as a general rule this court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)
Christine failed to object to the Commissioner's untimely filing of his trial memorandum at the tax court hearing as required by the tax court rules. See TC Rule 144. Thus, Christine raises this issue for the first time on appeal, and this court need not consider it. See Bolker, 760 F.2d at 1043.