
    Charles OKONKWO and Cecilia Okonkwo, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-71020
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 7, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed December 11, 2017
    James Victor Kosnett, Esquire, Attorney, Kosnett Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants
    Michael J. Haungs, John Schumann, 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: REINHARDT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, 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 Frederic Block, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants Charles Okonkwo and Cecilia Okonkwo seek review of the Tax Court’s finding that the Okonkwos were not entitled to certain claimed deductions on their second house. Reviewing for clear error, see Christensen v. CIR, 786 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1986), we affirm.

The Okonkwos’ appeal rests on one contention: that the Tax Court erred in finding that their daughter did not pay fair rent while residing in their second house. Specifically, the Okonkwos argue that in addition to paying $2,000 per month in cash, which is substantially below market value, their daughter also paid rent in services. However, the evidence in the record shows that the Okonkwos’ daughter provided minimal services, if any, to the Okonkwos during her residence in their second house. Because the Tax Court’s finding that the Okonkwos’ daughter did not pay fair rent is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,” we must affirm. See Wolf v. CIR, 4 F.3d 709, 712-13 (9th Cir. 1993).

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