Abu Ala Badruddoza v. Commissioner of IRS
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999662454-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999663049-2]. Originating case number: 1922-15. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999737272]. Mailed to: Abu Ala MD Badruddoza. [15-2007]
Appeal: 15-2007
Doc: 21
Filed: 01/19/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2007
ABU ALA MD BADRUDDOZA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
Submitted:
January 14, 2016
(Tax Ct. No. 1922-15)
Decided:
January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abu Ala MD Badruddoza, Appellant Pro Se.
Gilbert Steven
Rothenberg, Senior Attorney, Robert William Metzler, Curtis
Clarence Pett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C.; William J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2007
Doc: 21
Filed: 01/19/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Abu Ala MD Badruddoza appeals from the tax court’s order
dismissing his petition in which he seeks to challenge his 2011
federal income tax liability.
find no reversible error.
We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly, although we grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the tax court.
Badruddoza v. Comm’r, Tax Ct. No. 1922-15
(U.S. Tax Ct. June 17, 2015).
We deny Badruddoza’s motion for a
transcript at government expense and 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?