Viola Chancellor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIOLA CHANCELLOR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 21-71264
Tax Ct. No. 20389-18
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Viola Chancellor appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a
bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of
deficiency for tax year 2015. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1).
We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual
* 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
DEC 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-71264
determinations. Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We
affirm.
The Tax Court did not clearly err in concluding that Chancellor was not
entitled to the claimed itemized deductions, subject to the Commissioner’s
concessions, because Chancellor failed to meet her burden of clearly showing a
right to the deductions. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159-61 (9th
Cir. 2007) (explaining that the taxpayer has the burden of clearly showing the right
to claimed deductions and is required to keep records to substantiate the
deductions).
The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the Commissioner’s
proposed computations under Tax Court Rule 155. See Erhard v. Comm’r, 46 F.3d
1470, 1479-80 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review); see also Palmer v.
IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the Internal Revenue
Service’s deficiency determinations are entitled to the presumption of correctness
unless the taxpayer submits competent evidence that the assessments were
arbitrary, excessive, or without foundation); Schuster v. Comm’r, 312 F.2d 311,
319 (9th Cir. 1962) (“[T]he Tax Court, in determining a taxpayer’s liability for the
deficiency, does not have jurisdiction to determine his liability for interest.”).
The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over
Chancellor’s claim that the Commissioner erroneously processed a tax payment,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-71264
causing an overdraft at her bank. See Gorospe v. Comm’r, 451 F.3d 966, 968 (9th
Cir. 2006) (the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is
defined by Title 26 of the United States Code).
We do not consider Chancellor’s arguments or allegations raised for the first
time on appeal because Chancellor has failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Sparkman, 509 F.3d at 1158.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --