Constantine G. Cristo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONSTANTINE G. CRISTO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-71788
Tax Ct. No. 2161-12
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Constantine G. Cristo appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision,
following a partial bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s
determination of deficiencies and penalties, after concessions, for tax year 2002.
We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax
* 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). Cristo’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
JUL 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71788
Court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual findings. Meruelo v.
Comm’r, 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Cristo was not entitled
to deduct educational expenses for his son as a business expense under 26 U.S.C.
§ 162. See Lee v. Comm’r, 723 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1984) (describing when
educational expenses may be deductible as business expenses).
Contrary to Cristo’s contention, there is no authority that dictates that the
Tax Court should have shifted the burden of proof to the Commissioner.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --