Filed: Jan. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1698 MELVIN J. LANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, and CAROLYN A. LANEY, Petitioner, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 90-24510) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: January 13, 1999 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin J. Laney, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1698 MELVIN J. LANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, and CAROLYN A. LANEY, Petitioner, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 90-24510) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: January 13, 1999 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin J. Laney, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1698 MELVIN J. LANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, and CAROLYN A. LANEY, Petitioner, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 90-24510) Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: January 13, 1999 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin J. Laney, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger Durney, Carol Ann Barthel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Melvin J. Laney appeals the tax court’s decision determining deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to his 1986, 1987, and 1988 federal income tax liabilities. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Laney v. Commissioner, No. 90-24510 (U.S. Tax Ct. Feb. 3, 1998). We dis- pense 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
