James Widtfeldt v. CIR

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2016
• Docket: 14-2382
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 14-2382 ___________________________

James A. Widtfeldt

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ___________________________

No. 14-2444 ___________________________

Estate of Gusteva Widtfeldt, Deceased, James A. Widtfeldt, Personal Representative

llllllllllllllllllllAppellant

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee ___________________________

No. 15-2166 ___________________________

Estate of Gusteva E. Widtfeldt, Deceased, James Widtfeldt, Statutory Executor

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________

Appeals from the United States Tax Court ____________

Submitted: March 7, 2016 Filed: March 11, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals--two of which arise from actions that were dismissed as duplicating the first action--James Widtfeldt appeals the tax court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a collection due process case. Following careful de novo review, we agree with the Commissioner that Widtfeldt was not entitled to re-litigate the tax liability of his deceased mother’s estate, and Widtfeldt has identified no basis for reversal. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330; Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r, 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of tax court’s grant of summary judgment); Widtfeldt v. Comm’r, 449 Fed. Appx. 561 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2012) (unpublished per curiam). We also conclude that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the duplicate actions. The rulings of the tax court are affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied as moot. ______________________________

-2-