Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jack Howard TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Jack Howard Taylor noted an appeal following the tax court's order denying his motion to vacate or revise the order upholding the Commissioner's notice of deficiency with respect to his 2012 income taxes. A notice of appeal from a decision of the tax court must be filed within 90 days after the decision is entered. 26 U.S.C. § 7483 (2012). The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213–14, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Spencer Med. Assocs. v. Comm'r, 155 F.3d 268, 269 (4th Cir. 1998). A timely motion to vacate or revise a decision tolls the appeal period until the motion is resolved. Tax Ct. R. 162; Spencer Med. Assocs., 155 F.3d at 271. Here, Taylor filed a motion to vacate or revise the judgment 34 days after entry of the order upholding the deficiency determination. Thus, his notice of appeal, filed 90 days after the entry of the order denying the motion to vacate or revise, was timely only as to the denial of the motion to vacate or revise.
We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error with respect to the tax court's order denying Taylor's motion to vacate or revise. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Taylor v. Comm'r of Internal Rev., No. 322273-12 (U.S. Tax Ct. Aug. 10, 2017). However, because Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the tax court's July 5, 2017 order, we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of that order. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the order upholding the deficiency determination. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1105
Decided: July 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)