McKelvey v. Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- William Bruce Costello & Maritza Legarcie (United States Tax Court 2021)
- Estate of Charles P. Morgan, Roxanna L. Morgan, Personal Representative and Roxanna L. Morgan (United States Tax Court 2021)
- Vardan Antonyan & Margarita Safaryan (United States Tax Court 2021)
- James Gordon Primus v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2020)
- Henry C. Williams & Sonja L. Johnson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2020)
- Rosemary McDowell & Adric McDowell v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2019)
- Denise Celeste McMillan v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2019)
- Jeffrey B. Yapp & Tamara A. Yapp v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2018)
- Tizard v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2016)
- Derrick James Ballard-Bey v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Hume v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Powell v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Derrick v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Heinbockel v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2013)
- Gale Jordan v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2013)
- Jordan v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2013)
- McPartland v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2012)
- Glotov v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Robert McKelvey appeals the Tax Court’s ruling that he is not entitled to deduct various expenses relating to the development of his tree farm. We agree with the Tax Court that the claimed deductions are “start-up expenses” that are not immediately deductible. Accordingly we affirm.
DISCUSSION
In a preliminary matter, we agree with the Commissioner that McKelvey’s notice of appeal is timely. A misdirected notice of appeal may be deemed timely by application of 28 U.S.C. § 1631, authorizing “federal courts to transfer appeals in civil matters in order to cure a lack of subject matter or appellate jurisdiction.” Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 1989).
On the merits, the Tax Court correctly rejected McKelvey’s claimed business deductions because he was not yet “carrying on a trade or business” as required by 26 U.S.C. § 162(c). The record indicates that McKelvey had only investigated the possibility of a tree farm by conducting studies and making a pilot planting. Even at the time of the Tax Court’s decision, McKelvey had not planted trees, harvested trees, or even decided what trees to plant. Accordingly, the Tax Court did not err by ruling that McKelvey’s expenses were start-up expenditures.
Finally, McKelvey seeks to renew arguments that he abandoned in Tax Court. We decline to address issues abandoned and not addressed by the lower court. See Harik v. California Teachers Ass’n, 326 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed, 72 U.S.L.W. 3105 (U.S. July 11, 2003) (No. 03-89).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.