Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Katrina G. Molake, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee., 914 F.2d 248 (4th Cir. 1990)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (September 10, 1990)

Docket number: 89-2670
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37328963
Id. vLex: VLEX-37328963

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. Arthur L. Nims, III, Chief Judge. (Docket No. 88-23162)

Katrina G. Molake, appellant pro se.

Gary R. Allen, Chief, Mary Frances Clark, Ann Belanger Durney, Stuart Evan Horwich, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

USTC

DISMISSED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Katrina G. Molake complains that the Tax Court decision dismissing her petition insofar as it challenged a deficiency notice for taxable years 1983, 1984, and 1985 was in error. Because the Tax Court retains jurisdiction over the remainder of Molake's petition challenging a deficiency notice for taxable year 1981, we dismiss this appeal as interlocutory.

In Estate of Yaeger v. Commissioner, 801 F.2d 96 (2d Cir.1986), the Second Circuit decided the issue of whether appellate jurisdiction extended to an order of the Tax Court which disposed of fewer than all of the tax years which were the subject of the Tax Court petition. Citing policies of judicial economy, unnecessary delay, and increased confusion as to when appeals must be taken, the court decided that a court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. We find the court's reasoning to be persuasive and accordingly dismiss Molake's interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED.

Other documents:
7 usc 136 sec 136 definitions | the Western Casualty and Surety Company a Corporation Appellant v Southwestern Bell Telephone Company a Co... | solar turbines intl vs ship-side crating co 5th cir 1996 | Acuerdo de la Comision Insular de Ordenacion del Territorio, Urbanismo y Patrimonio Historico de aprobacion definitiva del Plan Parcial de Ordenacion d... | García Remón, del Numancia, noveno técnico de Primera destituido este año | auto of audiencia provincial sevilla sección 3ª nº 442/2005 of september 29 2005 | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Madrid - Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo nº 570/2006, of ... | Decreto 18/1988, de 13 de mayo, sobre estructura orgánica y funcional de la Consejería de Salud, Consumo y Bienestar Social | El Ple de l'Ajuntament en sessió de 2 d'abril de 2007 acordà, entre altres i sense perjudici ... | united states of america plaintiff-appellee v janet dees defendant-appellant. 125 f.3d 261 5th cir 1997 | las nuevas ayudas propicianla picaresca