Thompson v. Commissioner

Ninth Circuit

Thompson v. Commissioner

695 F. App'x 272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 14, 2017

Docket16-72537

StatusUnpublished

This text of 695 F. App'x 272 (Thompson v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Commissioner, 695 F. App'x 272 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

John H. Thompson and Melanie Salyers Thompson appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax *273 Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that appellants did not meet their burden of proving they were entitled to a foreign earned income exclusion. See 26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(1) (definition of "qualified individual”); id. § 911(d)(4) (requirements for waiver of period of stay in a foreign country). Contrary to appellants’ contentions, any prior allowance of the exclusion or failure to provide a clear explanation as to any change in position regarding the exclusion does not provide a basis for relief. See Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S. 68, 72-73, 85 S.Ct. 1301, 14 L.Ed.2d 223 (1965) (“[T]he Commissioner is empowered retroactively to correct mistakes of law in the application of the tax laws to particular transactions ... even where a taxpayer may have reliéd 'to his detriment on the Commissioner’s mistake.”).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate because the motions provided no basis to conclude that the Tax Court’s prior decisions were in error. See Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for motion to vacate); Parkinson v. Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (standard of review for motion for reconsideration).

To the extent appellants challenge the denial of the motion to dismiss, we reject the challenge as meritless.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

John H. Thompson and Melanie Salyers Thompson appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax *273 Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that appellants did not meet their burden of proving they were entitled to a foreign earned income exclusion. See 26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(1) (definition of "qualified individual”); id. § 911(d)(4) (requirements for waiver of period of stay in a foreign country). Contrary to appellants’ contentions, any prior allowance of the exclusion or failure to provide a clear explanation as to any change in position regarding the exclusion does not provide a basis for relief. See Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S. 68, 72-73, 85 S.Ct. 1301, 14 L.Ed.2d 223 (1965) (“[T]he Commissioner is empowered retroactively to correct mistakes of law in the application of the tax laws to particular transactions ... even where a taxpayer may have reliéd 'to his detriment on the Commissioner’s mistake.”).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate because the motions provided no basis to conclude that the Tax Court’s prior decisions were in error. See Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for motion to vacate); Parkinson v. Comm’r, 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (standard of review for motion for reconsideration).

To the extent appellants challenge the denial of the motion to dismiss, we reject the challenge as meritless.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 F. App'x 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-commissioner-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack