MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants Charles Okonkwo and Cecilia Okonkwo seek review of the Tax Court’s finding that the Okonkwos were not entitled to certain claimed deductions on their second house. Reviewing for clear error, see Christensen v. CIR, 786 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1986), we affirm.

The Okonkwos’ appeal rests on one contention: that the Tax Court erred in finding that their daughter did not pay fair rent while residing in their second house. Specifically, the Okonkwos argue that in addition to paying $2,000 per month in cash, which is substantially below market value, their daughter also paid rent in services. However, the evidence in the record shows that the Okonkwos’ daughter provided minimal services, if any, to the Okonkwos during her residence in their second house. Because the Tax Court’s finding that the Okonkwos’ daughter did not pay fair rent is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,” we must affirm. See Wolf v. CIR, 4 F.3d 709, 712-13 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.