RONALD FISH V. CIR, No. 15-73389 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 19 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD CRAIG FISH, No. Petitioner-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73389 Tax Ct. No. 10691-13 v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted October 17, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MCSHANE,*** District Judge. Ronald Craig Fish deducted losses sustained in his individual retirement account (“IRA”) on his 2009 tax return. The IRS disallowed the deduction, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. determined a deficiency, and imposed an accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. § 6662. The Tax Court sustained the deficiency and the penalty. We have jurisdiction over Fish’s appeal of the Tax Court judgment under I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1) and affirm. The only issue on appeal is whether Fish may deduct unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”) losses sustained by two partnerships held in an IRA from his personal taxable income.1 Although IRAs are generally tax-exempt, they are “subject to the taxes imposed by section 511” on UBTI of organizations in which they invest. I.R.C. § 408(e)(1); see I.R.C. § 511. The Tax Code provides that UBTI losses may be carried forward or backward to deduct against gains within an IRA. See I.R.C. § 512(b)(6); see also Treas. Reg. § 1.512(b)–(1)(e)(1) (“The net operating loss deduction provided in section 172 shall be allowed in computing unrelated business taxable income.”). But, the Code does not provide for the pass-through of UBTI losses to an IRA beneficiary’s personal tax return. See I.R.C. §§ 511–13. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Tax Court. AFFIRMED. 1 Because Fish does not “clearly and distinctly” challenge the accuracy-related penalty in his opening brief, that issue is waived. See Avila v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 758 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
