Rodriguez v. Commissioner

Fourth Circuit

Rodriguez v. Commissioner

551 F. App'x 67

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 2014

DocketNo. 13-1966

StatusPublished

This text of 551 F. App'x 67 (Rodriguez v. Commissioner) 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

Rodriguez v. Commissioner, 551 F. App'x 67 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isidoro Rodriguez and Irene Rodriguez appeal the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of additional taxes and penalty with respect to their 2006 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Rodriguez v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue Serv., Tax Ct. No. 10691-09 (U.S.Tax Ct. Feb. 13, 2013). We deny the Rodriguez’ motion to recuse the judges of this court as well as their motion to vacate the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isidoro Rodriguez and Irene Rodriguez appeal the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of additional taxes and penalty with respect to their 2006 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Rodriguez v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue Serv., Tax Ct. No. 10691-09 (U.S.Tax Ct. Feb. 13, 2013). We deny the Rodriguez’ motion to recuse the judges of this court as well as their motion to vacate the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 F. App'x 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-commissioner-ca4-2014.