Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bach v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 08-2299 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2299 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2299 DAVID BACH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 06-23061-L) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bach, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas J. Clark, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2299 DAVID BACH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 06-23061-L) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bach, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas J. Clark, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; Donald L. Korb, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Bach appeals from the tax court’s orders upholding the Commissioner’s deficiency determination and proposed collection activities with respect to his tax liability for the 1993 tax year, and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. See Bach v. Comm’r, IRS, Tax Ct. No. 06- 23061-L (U.S.T.C. Sept. 2, 2008; filed Sept. 10, 2008 & entered Sept. 11, 2008; filed Sept. 17, 2008 & entered Sept. 22, 2008). 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