James Widtfeldt v. CIR
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Denying as moot [4175866-2] [4176921-2] motion for summary affirmance with a suggestion that briefing be suspended pending a ruling on summary affirmance filed by Mr. Anthony T. Sheehan. in 14-2382 and 14-2444; [4376535] [14-2382, 14-2444, 15-2166]
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2382
___________________________
James A. Widtfeldt
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
___________________________
No. 14-2444
___________________________
Estate of Gusteva Widtfeldt, Deceased, James A. Widtfeldt, Personal Representative
llllllllllllllllllllAppellant
v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee
___________________________
No. 15-2166
___________________________
Estate of Gusteva E. Widtfeldt, Deceased, James Widtfeldt, Statutory Executor
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Appellate Case: 14-2382
Page: 1
Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Entry ID: 4376535
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Appeals from the United States Tax Court
____________
Submitted: March 7, 2016
Filed: March 11, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals--two of which arise from actions that were
dismissed as duplicating the first action--James Widtfeldt appeals the tax court’s
grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a collection
due process case. Following careful de novo review, we agree with the
Commissioner that Widtfeldt was not entitled to re-litigate the tax liability of his
deceased mother’s estate, and Widtfeldt has identified no basis for reversal. See 26
U.S.C. § 6330; Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r, 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.
2010) (de novo review of tax court’s grant of summary judgment); Widtfeldt v.
Comm’r, 449 Fed. Appx. 561 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2012) (unpublished per curiam). We
also conclude that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the duplicate
actions. The rulings of the tax court are affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and the
Commissioner’s motion is denied as moot.
______________________________
-2-
Appellate Case: 14-2382
Page: 2
Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Entry ID: 4376535
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?