Hynes, Jr., et al v. Commissioner of IRS

Filing

OPINION issued by Sandra L. Lynch, Appellate Judge; Kermit V. Lipez, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge. Per Curiam. Unpublished. [16-1336]

Case: 16-1336

Document: 00117089534

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/07/2016

Entry ID: 6053091

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 16-1336
JOHN J. HYNES, JR. & EILEEN J. HYNES,
Petitioners, Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF
THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Before
Lynch, Lipez, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.

Timothy J. Burke for appellants.
Sherra Wong, Attorney, Tax Division, with whom Bruce R.
Ellisen, Attorney, Tax Division, and Caroline D. Ciraolo,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Justice, were on brief, for appellee.

December 7, 2016

Case: 16-1336

Document: 00117089534

Per Curiam.

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/07/2016

Entry ID: 6053091

Appellants John J. Hynes, Jr. and Eileen J.

Hynes appeal an adverse United States Tax Court decision.

After

oral argument and a careful review of the record and briefs, we
summarily affirm the judgment of the Tax Court. See 1st Cir.
R. 27.0(c).

In doing so, we specifically note that the Tax Court

correctly placed on appellants the burden of proving that they had
not in fact received the income reported on their tax returns, and
that the court did not err in finding that appellants had failed
to meet this burden. See Cavallaro v. Comm'r, 2016 WL 6820367,
at *3 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016); United States v. Rexach, 482
F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1973).
did

not

err

in

accuracy-related
Service.

finding

Similarly, we note that the Tax Court

that

penalties

appellants

imposed

See I.R.C. § 6662.
Affirmed.

- 2 -

by

were
the

liable

Internal

for

the

Revenue