Curtis

Curtis v. Commissioner

Good Law
73 F. App'x 200
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 14, 2003No. 02-70182; Tax Ct. No. 11125-95California793 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Pro se petitioner Laurel Ann Curtis appeals the United States Tax Court’s reinstatement of its original decision in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue after remand by this Court. See Curtis v. Comm’r, No. 97-70052, 2000 WL 249280 (9th Cir.1999). The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s determinations of tax deficiencies and additions for the tax years 1983 through 1993 and granted the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions under 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (a)(1). See Curtis v. Comm’r, 82 T.C.M. (CCH) 943 , 2001 WL 1530238 ; Curtis v. Comm’r, 72 T.C.M. (CCH) 1114 , 1996 WL 617788 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 (a)(1).

The Tax Court finding that the Commissioner’s tax deficiency determinations are entitled to a presumption of correctness is not clearly erroneous. See Edelson v. Comm’r, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1987). The presumption of correctness attaches to a Commissioner’s deficiency determination when it is supported by sufficient evidence connecting the taxpayer to income-producing activity. See Rapp v. Comm’r, 774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir.1985); Weimerskirch v. Comm’r, 596 F.2d 358, 3630 (9th Cir.1979). The required showing is “minimal,”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.