Cir

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Bradley K Morrison appeals from the Tax Court’s denial of his motion for litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 . We affirm the Tax Court.

On appeal, Morrison does not argue, as he did in the Tax Court, that the joint attorney engagement letter establishes an absolute obligation to repay Caspian for the amounts Caspian paid to counsel on Morrison’s behalf. Nor does he argue, as he did in the Tax Court, that he and Nariman Teymourian orally agreed as part of the stock buyout agreement that if Morrison ultimately recovered fees, Morrison would repay Caspian. We therefore do not address those abandoned arguments. See, e.g., Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994).

Although Morrison’s argument on appeal is not perfectly clear, he seems to argue that Caspian’s payment of Morrison’s litigation costs, combined with Tey-mourian’s own understanding that Morrison would reimburse Caspian for any costs recovered from the IRS, constituted an implied in fact contract obligating Morrison to reimburse Caspian. Morrison never presented this precise argument in the Tax Court and has provided no justification for his failure to do so. We therefore deem…