Filed: Apr. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1083 WILLIAM E. CREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-10294) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William E. Creen, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert J. Branman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JU
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1083 WILLIAM E. CREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-10294) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William E. Creen, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert J. Branman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1083 WILLIAM E. CREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-10294) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William E. Creen, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert J. Branman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William E. Creen appeals from the tax court’s order dismissing his petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Creen asserted in his petition that compensation from his labor was not taxable as wages because it was earned in South Carolina. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the tax court. See Creen v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 99-10294 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 19, 1999). We dispense 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
