
    Rodolfo VELASQUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-72290.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 5, 2012.
    Rodolfo Velasquez, Vallejo, CA, pro se.
    Patricia McDonald Bowman, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and, therefore, denies Velasquez’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision determining an income tax deficiency of $2,156 for tax year 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law. Biehl v. Comm’r, 351 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The Tax Court correctly determined the deficiency because, contrary to Velasquez’s contention, the deductions attributable to renting the home where Velasquez also resided were properly limited to the gross income derived from that rental activity. See 26 U.S.C. § 280A(c)(5); Bolton v. Comm’r, 694 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1982) (“[Section 280A(c)(5) ] provides first that deductions allowed for expenses attributed to rental of the unit (i.e. deductions of any kind — maintenance, taxes, interest) cannot exceed an amount equal to the amount of gross rental income received from the property for that year[.]”)

Velasquez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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