Tiffany v. Commissioner

Fourth Circuit

Tiffany v. Commissioner

91 F. App'x 265

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2004

DocketNo. 03-2130

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 F. App'x 265 (Tiffany 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

Tiffany v. Commissioner, 91 F. App'x 265 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John Rolando Tiffany appeals from the tax court’s orders dismissing his petition for redetermination of his liability for income taxes and additions to tax for the years 1997 to 2000, and denying his motion to vacate the dismissal order. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Tiffany v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Tax Ct. No. 03-2921 (U.S.T.C. May 16, 2003 & July 16, 2003). Additionally, we deny Tiffany’s motion for a stay of proceedings and deny the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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

PER CURIAM:

John Rolando Tiffany appeals from the tax court’s orders dismissing his petition for redetermination of his liability for income taxes and additions to tax for the years 1997 to 2000, and denying his motion to vacate the dismissal order. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Tiffany v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Tax Ct. No. 03-2921 (U.S.T.C. May 16, 2003 & July 16, 2003). Additionally, we deny Tiffany’s motion for a stay of proceedings and deny the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 F. App'x 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-v-commissioner-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack