Arthur S. Curtis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

8 F.3d 817, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 34704, 1993 WL 415180
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 19, 1993
Docket92-2060
StatusUnpublished

This text of 8 F.3d 817 (Arthur S. Curtis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arthur S. Curtis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 F.3d 817, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 34704, 1993 WL 415180 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

8 F.3d 817

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
ARTHUR S. CURTIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-2060.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 18, 1992.
Decided: October 19, 1993.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct., 90-8583)

Arthur S. Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.

Steven Wesley Parks, Gary R. Allen, Linda E. Mosakowski, United States Department of Justice, for Appellee.

U.S.T.C.

DISMISSED

Before WIDENER, HALL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Arthur S. Curtis appeals from the tax court's orders (1) denying his request for reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred in connection with a dispute over the Commissioner's deficiency assessments for tax years 1986 and 1987, and (2) denying his motion to vacate the tax court's decision. Curtis elected to have this case heard as a "small tax case" under 26 U.S.C. § 7463 (1988), which provides that decisions in these cases "shall not be reviewed in any other court and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case." 26 U.S.C. § 7463(b). Therefore, we grant the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F.3d 817, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 34704, 1993 WL 415180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-s-curtis-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca4-1993.