Elawyers Elawyers
Virginia| Change

Tiffany v. Commissioner, IRS, 03-2130 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2130 Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2130 JOHN ROLANDO TIFFANY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 03-2921) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Rolando Tiffany, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Ralei
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2130 JOHN ROLANDO TIFFANY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 03-2921) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Rolando Tiffany, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, Janet A. Bradley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John Rolando Tiffany appeals from the tax court’s orders dismissing his petition for redetermination of his liability for income taxes and additions to tax for the years 1997 to 2000, and denying his motion to vacate the dismissal order. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Tiffany v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Tax Ct. No. 03-2921 (U.S.T.C. May 16, 2003 & July 16, 2003). Additionally, we deny Tiffany’s motion for a stay of proceedings and deny the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions. 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 -
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