
    Bonnie J. ANGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Bonnie J. Angle, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-70939, No. 16-70941
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 16, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed October 26, 2017
    William Edward Taggart, Jr., Attorney, William E. Taggart, Jr. A Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Bruce R. Ellisen, Bethany B. Hauser, Esquire, Attorney, Douglas Campbell Ren-nie, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Bonnie J. Angle appeals the U.S. Tax Court’s denial of reasonable litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7430(f), 7482(a)(1), and we affirm.

Litigation costs must be denied if Angle failed to establish that her net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time her action was filed. 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B)). Angle filed for relief as an innocent spouse on December 23, 2011. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015.

The evidence shows that Angle’s net worth exceeded $2,000,000 at the time of filing. Net worth is calculated according to generally accepted accounting principles, and assets are valued at their acquisition cost. Am. Pac. Concrete Pipe Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 788 F.2d 586, 590-91 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. 88.88 Acres of Land, 907 F.2d 106, 107 (9th Cir. 1990). At the time of filing, Angle’s assets included $3,608,009.47 owed to her on loans she had made to two corporations. Only by valuing these loans at $838,140 did Angle’s accountant conclude that her net worth did not exceed $2,000,000. Angle argues that the remaining loan amount of $2,669,869.47 is worthless, but the evidence does not support this. Angle also argues that the Tax Court was bound to accept the conclusions of her accountant, but the accountant neither audited nor attempted to verify the documents he relied upon in reaching these conclusions.

We decline to address Angle’s argument that she satisfied the “prevailing party” requirement because she has failed to meet the net worth requirement.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     