Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Talmage v. Commissioner, 96-1970 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1970 Visitors: 31
Filed: Nov. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1970 STEPHEN V. TALMAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-339) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: November 15, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen V. Talmage, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Gary R
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1970 STEPHEN V. TALMAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-339) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: November 15, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen V. Talmage, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Gary R. Allen, Randolph L. Hutter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen V. Talmage appeals from the tax court's orders (1) en- tered March 11, 1996, granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. ยง 6673(a)(1)(B) (1994) for pursuing a frivolous action in tax court; and, (2) entered April 17, 1996, denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm, based on the reasoning of the tax court. The government has filed a motion seeking sanctions against Talmage for noting a frivolous appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 38. We deny the motion without prejudice to file another motion should Talmage file another appeal in this court raising similar claims as those raised in this appeal. We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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