
    Michael S. OROS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-71071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 31, 2013.
    Michael S. Oros, Aloha, OR, pro se.
    Rachel Ida Wollitzer, Esquire, John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Bruce R. Ellisen, 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.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael S. Oros appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of an income tax deficiency for tax year 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and for clear error the Tax Court’s factual determinations. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in determining that Oros failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate his entitlement to claimed travel-related business deductions because Oros did not show that he was in the trade or business of being a book author. See 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) (taxpayer may deduct expenses for carrying on a “trade or business”); Comm’r v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35, 107 S.Ct. 980, 94 L.Ed.2d 25 (1987) (“[T]o be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with continuity and regularity and ... the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit. A sporadic activity, a hobby, or an amusement diversion does not qualify.”); Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir.2007) (taxpayer bears burden of showing right to claimed deduction).

We reject Oros’s contentions regarding conduct by Internal Revenue Service officials because it is irrelevant to the Tax Court’s determination.

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