MEMORANDUM **

Carlos W. Smith appeals pro se from the tax court’s order following a bench trial upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s deficiencies and penalties for tax years 2005 and 2006. 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 findings. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The tax court properly upheld Smith’s tax deficiencies because he did not substantiate his claimed deductions with *759 any evidence despite being given numerous opportunities to do so. See Norgaard v. Comm’r, 939 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1991) (the taxpayer carries the burden of establishing entitlement to a deduction).

The tax court properly upheld Smith’s penalties because he failed to meet his burden of showing that the underpayment was not a result of negligence. See 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a); Pahl v. Comm’r, 150 F.3d 1124,1131 (9th Cir. 1998).

Smith’s contentions that he was retaliated against are unavailing. See Karme v. Comm’r, 673 F.2d 1062,1064 (9th Cir. 1982) (courts will look behind the deficiency notice to determine the Commissioner’s motives only in extremely rare cases involving unconstitutional conduct).

Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.