Jombo v. Commissioner

District of Columbia

Jombo v. Commissioner

313 F. App'x 330

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 27, 2009

DocketNo. 07-1440

StatusPublished

This text of 313 F. App'x 330 (Jombo v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jombo v. Commissioner, 313 F. App'x 330 (D.D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[331]*331 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. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the United States Tax Court entered August 8, 2007, be affirmed. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s petition for lack of prosecution and entering a decision that appellant was liable for deficiencies and additions as determined by the IRS for the years 2001-2004. See I.R.C. § 7459(d); Ducommun v. Comm’r, 732 F.2d 752 (10th Cir.1983); cf. Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165, 167-68 (D.C.Cir.1990). Appellant has failed to explain adequately his failure to appear in the Tax Court.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

[331]*331 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. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the United States Tax Court entered August 8, 2007, be affirmed. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s petition for lack of prosecution and entering a decision that appellant was liable for deficiencies and additions as determined by the IRS for the years 2001-2004. See I.R.C. § 7459(d); Ducommun v. Comm’r, 732 F.2d 752 (10th Cir.1983); cf. Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165, 167-68 (D.C.Cir.1990). Appellant has failed to explain adequately his failure to appear in the Tax Court.

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 resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 F. App'x 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jombo-v-commissioner-dcd-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack