Alvin Kanofsky v. Commissioner of Internal Rev

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999640301-2] Originating case number: 022008-13L Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704569]. Mailed to: Alvin Kanofsky. [15-1778]

Appeal: 15-1778

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1778

ALVIN SHELDON KANOFSKY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
(Tax Ct. No. 022008-13L)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Sheldon Kanofsky, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael J. Haungs,
Supervisory Attorney, John Schumann, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1778

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alvin
upholding

Sheldon
the

Kanofsky

appeals

Commissioner’s

notice

the
of

tax

court’s

federal

tax

order

lien

to

collect his unpaid income tax liabilities for the 2006 and 2007
tax

years

and

imposing

a

penalty

upon

Kanofsky

frivolous arguments for the purpose of delay.

for

raising

The Commissioner

has moved to dismiss the appeal for improper venue.

We have

reviewed the record and conclude that venue does not lie in this
Circuit.

See 28 U.S.C. § 7482(b)(1) (2012).

Additionally, we

find that transfer of venue to the Third Circuit is not in the
interest of justice.
(4th

Cir.

2011)

See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 122-23

(declining

to

transfer

case

under

28

U.S.C.

§ 1631 [(2012)] due, in part, to “weakness of [the appellant’s]
argument on the merits”).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2