WILLIAM LICHA V. CIR, No. 12-72170 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM J. LICHA; ALICIA T. LICHA, AKA Alicia Tovar, No. 12-72170 Tax Ct. No. 14382-08 Petitioners - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. William J. Licha and Alicia T. Licha, a.k.a. Alicia Tovar, appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, entered after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s deficiency determination and accuracy-related penalties for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). tax years 2001 through 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its findings of fact, Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm. The Tax Court properly upheld the deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that the Lichas failed to report income and capital gains for the tax years at issue, and the Lichas did not submit any relevant evidence “showing that the deficienc[ies] w[ere] arbitrary or erroneous.” Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 1999). We reject as unsupported by law or evidence the Lichas’ contentions that the Tax Court and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have no authority to determine deficiencies, the IRS’s failure to include “OMB Control Numbers” on various documents relieves the Lichas of their duty to pay federal income taxes, the IRS improperly denied their Freedom of Information Act requests, and the tax court judge was biased against them. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including any challenge to the Tax Court’s accuracy-related penalties. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 12-72170
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
