Filed: Feb. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2205 RODNEY L. BURR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-12918) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney L. Burr, Appellant Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2205 RODNEY L. BURR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-12918) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney L. Burr, Appellant Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; B...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2205 RODNEY L. BURR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-12918) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney L. Burr, Appellant Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; B. John Williams, Jr., INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney L. Burr appeals from the tax court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and additions to tax for the years 1995 and 1996. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Burr v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 99- 12918 (U.S.T.C. July 12, 2002). 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
