Spaid v. U.S. Tax Court

D.C. Circuit

Spaid v. U.S. Tax Court

214 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 06-1118

StatusPublished

This text of 214 F. App'x 2 (Spaid v. U.S. Tax Court) 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

Spaid v. U.S. Tax Court, 214 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the Tax Court filed February 24, 2006 be affirmed. Whether this court’s review is for abuse of discretion, see Tulman v. Comm. on Admissions & Grievances, 135 F.2d 268, 268 (D.C.Cir.1943) (per curiam), or plenary, see In re Grievance Comm. of the United States Dist. Court, 847 F.2d 57, 61 (2d Cir.1988), appellant’s challenges fail. The Tax Court properly reprimanded appellant for her advancement of frivolous arguments and her failure to cite adverse legal authority. See Tax Court R. Prac. and P. 202; Model Rules of Profl Conduct 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

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 order of the Tax Court filed February 24, 2006 be affirmed. Whether this court’s review is for abuse of discretion, see Tulman v. Comm. on Admissions & Grievances, 135 F.2d 268, 268 (D.C.Cir.1943) (per curiam), or plenary, see In re Grievance Comm. of the United States Dist. Court, 847 F.2d 57, 61 (2d Cir.1988), appellant’s challenges fail. The Tax Court properly reprimanded appellant for her advancement of frivolous arguments and her failure to cite adverse legal authority. See Tax Court R. Prac. and P. 202; Model Rules of Profl Conduct 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).

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)

214 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spaid-v-us-tax-court-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack