The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1944•Salih M. Zamzam v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
01-1944Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 14, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1944
SALIH M. ZAMZAM; MARIAM ZAMZAM; SALIH M.
ZAMZAM, M.D., INCORPORATED,
Petitioners - Appellants,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. Nos. 97-2984,
97-3004)
Submitted: December 21, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Salih M. Zamzam, Mariam Zamzam, Appellants Pro Se. Gilbert Steven
Rothenberg, Joel L. McElvain, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Salih M. Zamzam, Mariam Zamzam, and Salih M. Zamzam M.D.,
Inc., appeal from the tax court’s order determining deficiencies
and penalties with respect to their 1990 through 1994 federal
income tax liabilities. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has
moved to dismiss the appeal by Salih M. Zamzam M.D., Inc., because
the corporation is not represented by counsel. Salih and Mariam
Zamzam have moved for appointment of counsel for the corporation.
We deny this motion. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506
U.S. 194, 197-98 (1993) (only natural person may be granted in
forma pauperis status). A corporation cannot appear in federal
court except through its attorney. Id. at 201-02. Accordingly, we
grant the Commissioner’s motion and dismiss the corporation’s
appeal.
With respect to the Zamzams’ appeal, we have reviewed the
record and the tax court’s opinions and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Zamzam
v. Comm’r., Nos. 97-2984, 97-3004 (U.S. Tax Ct. Dec. 7, 2000 & May
18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.