Edwards v. Commissioner

D.C. Circuit

Edwards v. Commissioner

119 F. App'x 293

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

DocketNo. 04-1121

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 119 F. App'x 293 (Edwards v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. Commissioner, 119 F. App'x 293 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States Tax Court and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340'). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions on appellant Noel Spaid is affirmed. We conclude the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for the reasons it gave in its memorandum opinion of July 12, 2002 and its supplemental memorandum opinion of May 22,2003.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41(a)(1).

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States Tax Court and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340'). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Tax Court’s imposition of sanctions on appellant Noel Spaid is affirmed. We conclude the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for the reasons it gave in its memorandum opinion of July 12, 2002 and its supplemental memorandum opinion of May 22,2003.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41(a)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F. App'x 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-commissioner-cadc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack