U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2015

Holmes v. Commissioner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided February 18, 2015 · Christen, Hurwitz, Burgess

593 F. App'x 693

Counsel

Robert Brooks Martin, Jr., Law Offices of Robert B. Martin Jr., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant., Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, U.S. Tax Court, Andrew Weiner, Michael J. Haungs, Supervisory, Gilbert Steven Roth-enberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department Of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Waimana Enterprises, Inc. (United States Tax Court 2026)
Matthew D. Hutcheson & Annette Hutcheson (United States Tax Court 2025)
Yosef Sehati A.K.A. Joseph Sehati and Lilly Kohanim-Sehati (United States Tax Court 2025)
Abdul Khaliq Mustafa Muhammad (United States Tax Court 2025)
Buckelew Farm, LLC F.K.A. Big K Farms LLC, Big K LLC, Tax Matters Partner (United States Tax Court 2024)
Michael R. Kelly (United States Tax Court 2021)
Michael R. Kelly (United States Tax Court 2021)
Richard C. Mathews v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2018)

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Ralph E. Holmes appeals from a Tax Court decision assessing deficiencies and penalties in connection with his returns for *694 the years 2000 through 2004. Holmes challenges the Tax Court’s finding that he was not entitled to defer recognition of gains pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1045. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482, and affirm.

1. We review the factual findings of the Tax Court for clear error. Boyd Gaming Corp. v. CIR, 177 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999).

2. The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding Holmes had failed to establish that he acquired the shares of LeonardoMD, Inc. at original issue. Holmes’s testimony on this point was contradictory, and at one point he said that he acquired the shares from company officers. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1045(b)(1), 1202(c)(1)(B); Ruark v. CIR, 449 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).

3. Nor did the Tax Court clearly err in finding Holmes’s conelusory and uncorroborated testimony insufficient to establish that at least 80% of LeonardoMD assets were used in the active conduct of qualified trades or businesses. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1045(b)(1), 1202(c)(2)(A), (e)(1)(A); Geiger v. CIR, 440 F.2d 688, 689-90 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). 1

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

. Because we affirm on these bases, we need not address Holmes's challenge to the Tax Court’s finding that he failed to establish Leo-nardoMD did not have more than $50 million in gross assets. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1045(b)(1), 1202(d)(1).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.