Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilt v. IRS, 02-1550 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1550 Visitors: 72
Filed: Dec. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1550 BARRY E. WILT; BARBARA A. WILT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CV-00-441-3-MN) Submitted: November 6, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1550 BARRY E. WILT; BARBARA A. WILT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CV-00-441-3-MN) Submitted: November 6, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry E. Wilt, Barbara A. Wilt, Appellants Pro Se. Richard Farber, Anthony Thomas Sheehan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry E. Wilt and Barbara A. Wilt appeal the district court’s order dismissing their tax refund suit for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (2000), the district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the partnership-level determinations upon which the penalties and interest at issue were based. The district court also lacked jurisdiction to abate interest on the underlying deficiency, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 6404(e), (h) (2000), or to award damages, see 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer