Stanley v. Commissioner

Eighth Circuit

Stanley v. Commissioner

489 F. App'x 993

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2012

Docket12-1914

StatusUnpublished

This text of 489 F. App'x 993 (Stanley v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanley v. Commissioner, 489 F. App'x 993 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harold Stanley appeals the tax court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his tax action. After careful consideration, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r, 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.) (de novo review), cert. denied — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 86, 178 L.Ed.2d 241 (2010), we conclude summary judgment was proper, see Bell v. Comm’r, 126 T.C. 356, 358 (2006) (26 U.S.C. § 6330 allows challenges to existence or amount of underlying liability if petitioner did not receive notice of deficiency or otherwise have opportunity to dispute liability; this statutory preclusion is triggered by opportunity to contest underlying liability, even if opportunity is not pursued). We therefore affirm the ruling of the tax court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellant’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Elizabeth Crewson Paris, United States Tax Court Judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harold Stanley appeals the tax court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his tax action. After careful consideration, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r, 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.) (de novo review), cert. denied — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 86, 178 L.Ed.2d 241 (2010), we conclude summary judgment was proper, see Bell v. Comm’r, 126 T.C. 356, 358 (2006) (26 U.S.C. § 6330 allows challenges to existence or amount of underlying liability if petitioner did not receive notice of deficiency or otherwise have opportunity to dispute liability; this statutory preclusion is triggered by opportunity to contest underlying liability, even if opportunity is not pursued). We therefore affirm the ruling of the tax court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellant’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Elizabeth Crewson Paris, United States Tax Court Judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 F. App'x 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-commissioner-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack