Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10639657
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Bryan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
No. 10639657 · Decided July 23, 2025
No. 10639657·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 23, 2025
Citation
No. 10639657
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUL 23 2025
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY J.A. BRYAN, JR., No. 23-3011
D.C. No.
Petitioner - Appellant, 16797-16
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court
Submitted July 14, 2025**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Bryan Jr. (“Taxpayer”) appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order
upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of an income tax
deficiency and imposition of penalties against him for tax years 2010, 2011 and
2012. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
except as they pertain to our ruling. We have jurisdiction of this appeal under
I.R.C. § 7482(a)(1) and we affirm the Tax Court.
Taxpayer may not deduct the 2007 loss from Pool Boy the Movie, LLC.
The Palm Finance loan to Pool Boy was allocable as a recourse liability to New
Moon, not to Watley, LLC. See Treas. Reg. § 1.752-2(b). This loan did not create
outside basis for Watley in Pool Boy because Watley did not bare the “economic
risk” of the loan. See § 1.752-2(a). Watley’s promissory note was an asset of Pool
Boy and thus would have an assumed value of zero in constructive liquidation, not
$2.7 million as Taxpayer asserts. See § 1.752-2(b). Additionally, this note does
not satisfy the exception for assets contributed to secure a partnership liability
under § 1.752-2(h). Taxpayer made no payments on the note, and it is not readily
tradeable on an established securities market, thus it cannot serve as an asset to
secure partnership liability. See § 1.752-2(h)(4); see also Don E. Williams Co. v.
Comm’r, 429 U.S. 569, 579 (1977); Levy v. Comm’r, 732 F.2d 1435, 1437 (9th Cir.
1984).
Nor did Taxpayer establish outside basis in NOTD Investments, LLC. The
Cold Fusion loan is a recourse liability allocated to the New Moon and Seven Arts
Pictures alone. Under the same constructive liquidation analysis as above,
Taxpayer’s promissory note is treated as having no value and thus uncollectible by
Cold Fusion. See § 1.752-2(b). This note also does not serve as an asset to secure
2 23-3011
partnership liability as Taxpayer has made no payments on it either. See § 1.752-
2(h)(4); see also Don E. Williams Co., 429 U.S. at 579. Therefore, Taxpayer may
not deduct the 2008 or 2009 losses from NOTD.
AFFIRMED.
3 23-3011
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 23 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 23 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
02(“Taxpayer”) appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of an income tax deficiency and imposition of penalties against him for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
03As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
04** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 23 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Bryan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 23, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10639657 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.