Chadwick Myers v. Commissioner of IRS
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike appellant's brief and exhibits [999668480-2]; denying Motion to impose sanctions [999688811-2]. Originating case number: 30321-13 L. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999737250]. Mailed to: Chadwick David Myers. [15-1967]
Appeal: 15-1967
Doc: 15
Filed: 01/19/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1967
CHADWICK DAVID MYERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
Submitted:
January 14, 2016
(Tax Ct. No. 30321-13L)
Decided:
January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chadwick David Myers, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael J. Haungs,
Supervisory Attorney, Marion Elizabeth Erickson, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1967
Doc: 15
Filed: 01/19/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Chadwick David Myers appeals from the tax court’s order
upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s proposed levy
action with respect to his income tax liability for the tax years
2003 through 2009, and imposing a penalty against Myers for making
frivolous arguments, 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (2012).
the record and find no reversible error.
We have reviewed
Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the tax court.
Myers v. Comm’r of
Internal Revenue, No. 30321-13L (U.S.T.C. May 28, 2015).
the
Commissioner’s
sanctions.
motions
to
strike
Myers’
brief
We deny
and
for
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
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?