Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Scott Goldsmith v. CIR, 18-1346 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 18-1346 Visitors: 40
Filed: Feb. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1346 _ Scott Kimrey Goldsmith lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee _ Appeal from The United States Tax Court _ Submitted: February 15, 2019 Filed: February 25, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Scott Goldsmith appeals from a tax court1 decision, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenu
More
                   United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 18-1346
                          ___________________________

                              Scott Kimrey Goldsmith

                              lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

                                           v.

                         Commissioner of Internal Revenue

                              lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee
                                    ____________

                      Appeal from The United States Tax Court
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 15, 2019
                             Filed: February 25, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Scott Goldsmith appeals from a tax court1 decision, which granted summary
judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and sustained a notice
of federal tax lien, in proceedings Goldsmith initiated under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320 and


      1
          The Honorable Mark V. Holmes, United States Tax Court Judge.
6330. Following a careful de novo review, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r,
594 F.3d 968
, 970 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the tax court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo), we conclude that the Commissioner’s determination was correct,
for the reasons explained by the tax court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
                       ______________________________




                                        -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