Load v. Cir

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LOAD, INC.; COAD, INC., 

Petitioners, No. 07-72564 v.

 D.C. No.

CIR-1 : 7287-02 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, OPINION

Respondent.

 Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Stephen J. Swift, Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

January 14, 2009—San Francisco, California

Filed February 2, 2009 Before: Myron H. Bright,* Procter Hug, Jr., and

Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion

*The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

1173

1174 LOAD, INC. v. CIR

COUNSEL

John F. Daniels, Janice Procter-Murphy, Alexander Arpad, Phoenix, Arizona, for the petitioners.

Richard T. Morrison, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Kathleen E. Lyon, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

OPINION PER CURIAM:

Appellants LOAD, Inc. and COAD, Inc.1 challenge the Tax Court’s determination of a federal income tax deficiency for the tax year ending September 30, 2000. The Tax Court held that certain of ADI’s expenses were not deductible as ordi- nary and necessary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) and must be capitalized as inventory costs under 26 U.S.C. § 263A.

LOAD, INC. v. CIR 1175 We review the Tax Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995). Our exclusive jurisdiction to review a final decision of the Tax Court arises under 26 U.S.C. § 7482.

The Tax Court wrote an extensive opinion on this matter. See LOAD, Inc. v. Comm’r, 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 969 (2007). We approve and adopt that opinion as governing this case. Accordingly, we affirm.