Gregory Podlucky v. Cir

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2024
• Docket: 22-70169
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY; No. 22-70169 KARLA S. PODLUCKY, Tax Ct. No. 453-17 Petitioners-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

Submitted September 19, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-appellants Gregory Joseph Podlucky (“Greg”) and Karla S.

Podlucky (“Karla”) (collectively, “Taxpayers”), appeal pro se the Tax Court’s

judgment on their petition for redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies

for 2003-2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7483. We review de novo

* 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 Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. SNJ Ltd.

v. CIR, 28 F.4th 936, 941 (9th Cir. 2022). We will reverse the Tax Court only

when left with the definite and firm conviction that the Tax Court’s factual

findings, including a fraud finding, were wrong, in that the Tax Court’s conclusion

was 1) illogical, 2) implausible, or 3) without support in inferences that may be

drawn from the record. Id. at 941-42; Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. CIR, 34 F.3d 1480,

1486 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding substantial evidence to support

the deficiency notice, and in finding that Taxpayers had failed to rebut the resulting

presumption of correctness. See Hardy v. CIR, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.

1999) (recognizing that, if government produces “some substantive evidence” of

unreported income, burden shifts to taxpayer to establish that determination is

arbitrary or erroneous). Neither did the Tax Court clearly err in finding evidence

of fraud to support the penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6663. See Laurins v. CIR,

889 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1989); Maciel v. CIR, 489 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir.

2007) (listing “badges of fraud” to support tax penalty).

The Tax Court also properly found that Karla was not entitled to innocent

spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6013, when the amount of understatement of tax

was attributable to her, in an amount that she should have known exceeded

Taxpayers’ income, and that was used to significantly benefit her in the form of

2 22-70169 jewelry sized for her, among other things.

All remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-70169