Deborah Messina v. Commissioner of Internal Reven
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH A. MESSINA, Petitioner Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Appellee.
Appeal from No. 04-10926)
September 28, 2009
October 8, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah A. Messina, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Ann Ketchum, Robert W. Metzler, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: In a prior appeal, we upheld the Commissioner's
determination of a deficiency in Deborah Messina's 1994 income taxes. subject However, based on the Commissioner's concession that, to certain limitations, Messina was entitled to a
deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 212(1) for the contingency fee paid to her attorney, we vacated in part and remanded the case to the tax court with instructions for that court to recompute
Messina's tax deficiency and penalties after affording her the deduction. The tax court has since adopted the Commissioner's
computation of Messina's 1994 income tax liability and penalties for 1994, finding that the computation reflects this court's mandate. Messina filed this appeal from the tax court's orders upholding the Commissioner's determinations of a deficiency in her 1994 income taxes and additions to tax and denying her
motion to vacate that order. find no reversible error.
We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the tax court.
See Messina v. Comm'r, IRS,
Tax Ct. No. 04-10926 (U.S.T.C. June 24, 2008 & filed Sept. 25, 2008; entered Sept. 26, 2008). 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?