CHARLES OKONKWO V. CIR, No. 16-71020 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES OKONKWO and CECILIA OKONKWO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71020 Tax Ct. No. 23496-13 Petitioners - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted December 7, 2017** Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District Judge. Appellants Charles Okonkwo and Cecilia Okonkwo seek review of the Tax Court’s finding that the Okonkwos were not entitled to certain claimed deductions * 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 Frederic Block, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. on their second house. Reviewing for clear error, see Christensen v. CIR, 786 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1986), we affirm. The Okonkwos’ appeal rests on one contention: that the Tax Court erred in finding that their daughter did not pay fair rent while residing in their second house. Specifically, the Okonkwos argue that in addition to paying $2,000 per month in cash, which is substantially below market value, their daughter also paid rent in services. However, the evidence in the record shows that the Okonkwos’ daughter provided minimal services, if any, to the Okonkwos during her residence in their second house. Because the Tax Court’s finding that the Okonkwos’ daughter did not pay fair rent is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,” we must affirm. See Wolf v. CIR, 4 F.3d 709, 712–13 (9th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED. 2