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)
08-2299•David Bach v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
08-2299Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 19, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2299
DAVID BACH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
(Tax Ct. No. 06-23061-L)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Bach, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas J. Clark, Kenneth W.
Rosenberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C.; Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General, Washington,
D.C.; Donald L. Korb, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
David Bach appeals from the tax court’s orders
upholding the Commissioner’s deficiency determination and
proposed collection activities with respect to his tax liability
for the 1993 tax year, and denying his motions for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the tax court. See Bach v. Comm’r, IRS, Tax Ct. No. 06-
23061-L (U.S.T.C. Sept. 2, 2008; filed Sept. 10, 2008 & entered
Sept. 11, 2008; filed Sept. 17, 2008 & entered Sept. 22, 2008).
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.