Filed: Aug. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-4183 _ Patricia Louise Hyde; Robert F. Batsch, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent. _ Appeal from The United States Tax Court _ Submitted: August 2, 2017 Filed: August 10, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Patricia Hyde and Robert Batsch appeal the tax court’s1 decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commission
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-4183 _ Patricia Louise Hyde; Robert F. Batsch, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent. _ Appeal from The United States Tax Court _ Submitted: August 2, 2017 Filed: August 10, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Patricia Hyde and Robert Batsch appeal the tax court’s1 decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissione..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4183
___________________________
Patricia Louise Hyde; Robert F. Batsch,
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners,
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
____________
Appeal from The United States Tax Court
____________
Submitted: August 2, 2017
Filed: August 10, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Hyde and Robert Batsch appeal the tax court’s1 decision, after a bench
trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination that they were
liable for income tax deficiencies and penalties for tax years 2007-2012.
1
The Honorable Mary Ann Cohen, United States Tax Court Judge.
Following a careful review, see Campbell v. Comm’r,
164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th
Cir.1999) (standard of review for tax court decisions), we conclude that the
Commissioner’s determination was correct, for the reasons explained by the tax court.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-