Filed: Jan. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1995 DOUGLAS STAUFFER BELL; NANCY CLARK BELL, Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 001973-10L) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Stauffer Bell, Nancy Clark Bell, Appellants Pro Se. Kat
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1995 DOUGLAS STAUFFER BELL; NANCY CLARK BELL, Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 001973-10L) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Stauffer Bell, Nancy Clark Bell, Appellants Pro Se. Kath..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1995
DOUGLAS STAUFFER BELL; NANCY CLARK BELL,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 001973-10L)
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Stauffer Bell, Nancy Clark Bell, Appellants Pro Se. Kathleen E. Lyon, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Stauffer Bell and Nancy Clark Bell seek to appeal the tax court’s order
dismissing in part, and remanding in part to the Internal Revenue Service Office of
Appeals, their petition in the underlying collection due process proceeding. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order the Bells seek
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we grant the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2