Blas: Advance Premium Credit Repayment and the Limits of the Appellate Record

In Blas v. Commissioner, No. 23-3523, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Tax Court decision requiring repayment of excess advance premium tax credits for 2014. The short memorandum illustrates three different limits: The factual record supporting the credit adjustment, the effect of an already dismissed bankruptcy, and the need to present appellate issues in the opening brief. Official memorandum, pages 1–3.

Status: The memorandum was filed October 15, 2026. It is not published and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The panel consisted of Judges O’Scannlain, Silverman and N.R. Smith. This analysis concerns the decision’s treatment of a 2014 return, not a new premium-credit rule for every 2026 taxpayer.

What the Tax Court Record Established

Leo Blas appealed without counsel after a bench trial in the Tax Court. The Ninth Circuit identified its jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1) and stated that it reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions anew. Those different standards matter: Disagreement with a factual result does not itself establish reversible error. Blas, at 1–2.

The Tax Court found that Blas obtained Marketplace health insurance and received $8,328 in advance premium tax credits through direct premium payments to his insurer in 2014. It also found his income for that year disqualified him from those credits. The appellate court said documents, stipulations and testimony supported the findings. Id. at 2.

The payment route is significant. The credit benefit described by the memorandum was paid to the health insurance company, rather than handed to the taxpayer as a refund. The court nevertheless treated it as advance premium tax credit payments received for his coverage. A record review must identify the benefit and payment route, not assume that the absence of a taxpayer bank deposit means no advance credit was provided.

Why the Court Affirmed Repayment

The memorandum also states that Blas confirmed the relevant facts by submitting Form 8962 during the audit of his 2014 return. The appellate result therefore did not rest on a bare IRS assertion about insurance coverage or income. The taxpayer’s submitted form was part of the record supporting the findings. Id.

Because advance payments exceeded his entitlement for 2014, the court applied section 36B(f)(2) and upheld repayment as an increase in that year’s tax. It affirmed the deficiency. The memorandum does not publish a new income threshold, reproduce the entire Form 8962 calculation, or decide another taxpayer’s repayment limitation. Its limited facts should not substitute for reviewing the correct year’s law and return documents.

For someone examining an analogous dispute, the useful comparison is among the coverage information, actual advance payments, income evidence and reconciliation form. Identify where those records agree and where they conflict. An appellate argument must address the findings actually made and the evidence supporting them, rather than simply repeat the original disagreement with the assessment.

The Dismissed Bankruptcy Did Not Stop This Appeal

Blas also raised bankruptcy-related concerns. The Ninth Circuit referred to its earlier decision reopening the appeal and explained that the bankruptcy case had been dismissed March 2, 2023. It found no pending bankruptcy proceeding prohibiting the appeal and no violation of an automatic stay by the Tax Court or IRS. Id.

The memorandum cited 11 U.S.C. section 362(c)(2), concerning the end of a stay when a bankruptcy case closes or is dismissed, or discharge is granted or denied. The ruling depends on the identified procedural history. It does not say that every tax proceeding is exempt from every bankruptcy stay. A different matter requires the actual bankruptcy orders and relevant dates.

Unpreserved Issues and the Final Result

The panel declined to consider Tax Court holdings not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or issues raised for the first time on appeal. It cited Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). The memorandum also denied Blas’s motion to file a supplemental brief and affirmed. Blas, at 2–3.

That sequence separates a disagreement about tax liability from the procedural ability to obtain appellate review of a particular issue. Preserve the return, reconciliation form, trial findings, relevant bankruptcy orders and opening brief together, while keeping their different functions clear. Our tax services page describes the practice; the tax procedure FAQ provides broader notice and forum context. This nonprecedential memorandum supplies a case-specific illustration, not a prediction of another appeal.