William A. Llanos v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM A. LLANOS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-70360
Tax Ct. No. 9890-18
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
William A. Llanos appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, after a
bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of
income tax deficiencies and penalties for tax year 2014. We have jurisdiction
under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions
* 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).
FILED
JAN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70360
and for clear error its factual findings. Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004
(9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency
determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence”
that Llanos failed to report income, and Llanos did not demonstrate “that the
deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” Id. at 1004-05. We reject as meritless
Llanos’s contention that the Tax Court should have shifted the burden of proof to
the Commissioner. See id.; see also 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (requirements for shifting
burden of proof to Commissioner)
The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s additions to taxes for
Llanos’s failure to file a valid tax return and to pay taxes as set forth in the
substitute for return. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1), (a)(2) (providing for additions
to tax where taxpayer fails, without reasonable cause, to file a timely tax return or
to pay the taxes due); see also id. § 6020(b)(2) (any substitute for return “made and
subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal
purposes”); id. § 6651(g)(2) (any return made by the Secretary under
§ 6020(b) “shall be treated as the return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of
determining the amount of the addition” under § 6651(a)(2)).
Contrary to Llanos’s contention, the Tax Court had jurisdiction because the
Commissioner mailed a valid notice of deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212; Scar v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70360
Comm’r, 814 F.2d 1363, 1366-70 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing requirements for
valid notice of deficiency such that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tax Court).
We reject as without merit Llanos’s contention that the Tax Court erred by
refusing to address Llanos’s tax avoidance arguments or by referring to them as
“tax defier” arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --