Cir

MEMORANDUM

Intervenor Adil Hiramanek appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, after a bench trial, concerning his former spouse’s tax liability in connection with their 2006 joint federal income tax. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482 (a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions, and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err by crediting the former spouse’s testimony and evidence over Hiramanek’s, and finding that the former spouse signed the joint tax return under duress and thus was not jointly and severally liable for the 2006 deficiency. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.6013 ^(d) (explaining that if a spouse establishes that he or she signed a return under duress, that return is not a joint return and the individual who signed that return is not jointly and severally liable for any deficiency in tax with respect to the return); see also Wilson v. Comm’r, 705 F.3d 980 , 983 n. 10 (9th Cir.2013) (defining duress in the tax context as “a constraint of will so strong that it makes a person reasonably unable to resist a demand to sign” (citation and internal quotation…