Hynes v. Commissioner

First Circuit

Hynes v. Commissioner

691 F. App'x 647

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

DocketNo. 16-1336

StatusPublished

This text of 691 F. App'x 647 (Hynes v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hynes v. Commissioner, 691 F. App'x 647 (1st Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants John J. Hynes, Jr. and Eileen J. Hynes appeal an adverse United States Tax Court decision. After oral argument and a careful review of the record and briefs, we summarily affirm the judgment of the Tax Court. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). In doing so, we specifically note that the Tax Court correctly placed on appellants the burden of proving that they had not in fact received the income reported on their tax returns, and that the court did not err in finding that appellants had failed to meet this burden. See Cavallaro v. Comm’r, 2016 WL 6820367, at *3 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016); United States v. Rexach, 482 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1973). Similarly, we note that the Tax Court did not err in finding that appellants were liable for the accuracy-related penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. See I.R.C. § 6662.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellants John J. Hynes, Jr. and Eileen J. Hynes appeal an adverse United States Tax Court decision. After oral argument and a careful review of the record and briefs, we summarily affirm the judgment of the Tax Court. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). In doing so, we specifically note that the Tax Court correctly placed on appellants the burden of proving that they had not in fact received the income reported on their tax returns, and that the court did not err in finding that appellants had failed to meet this burden. See Cavallaro v. Comm’r, 2016 WL 6820367, at *3 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016); United States v. Rexach, 482 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1973). Similarly, we note that the Tax Court did not err in finding that appellants were liable for the accuracy-related penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. See I.R.C. § 6662.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 F. App'x 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hynes-v-commissioner-ca1-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack