Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jesse Yates, III v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 19-2222 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-2222 Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 21, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1833 JESSE G. YATES, III; MELISSA LONG YATES, Petitioners – Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 3685-11) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse G. Yates, III, Melissa Long Yates, Appellants Pro S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1833 JESSE G. YATES, III; MELISSA LONG YATES, Petitioners – Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 3685-11) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse G. Yates, III, Melissa Long Yates, Appellants Pro Se. Carol Barthel, Randolph Lyons Hutter, Kathryn Keneally, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jesse G. Yates, III, and Melissa Long Yates appeal from the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency and accuracy-related penalty with respect to their 2006 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Yates v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Tax Ct. No. 3685-11 (U.S. Tax Ct. Mar. 28. 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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