Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1736 NORTON M. BOWMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-6078) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norton M. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger Durney, Karen Deborah Utiger, UNITE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1736 NORTON M. BOWMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-6078) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norton M. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger Durney, Karen Deborah Utiger, UNITED..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1736 NORTON M. BOWMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-6078) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norton M. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger Durney, Karen Deborah Utiger, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Norton M. Bowman appeals from the tax court’s final decision determining a deficiency with respect to his 1988 federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the tax court. (U.S. Tax Ct. Mar. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
