Deborah Messina v. Commissioner of Internal Reven, No. 09-1066 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1066 DEBORAH A. MESSINA, Petitioner Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from No. 04-10926) Submitted: the United September 28, 2009 States Tax Court. Decided: (Tax Court October 8, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah A. Messina, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Ann Ketchum, Robert W. Metzler, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In a prior appeal, we upheld the Commissioner s determination of a deficiency in Deborah Messina s 1994 income taxes. However, based on the Commissioner s concession that, subject to certain limitations, Messina was entitled to a deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 212(1) for the contingency fee paid to her attorney, we vacated in part and remanded the case to the tax court with instructions for that court to recompute Messina s tax deficiency and penalties after affording her the deduction. The tax court has since adopted the Commissioner s computation of Messina s 1994 income tax liability and penalties for 1994, finding that the computation reflects this court s mandate. Messina filed this appeal from the tax court s orders upholding the Commissioner s determinations of a deficiency in her 1994 income taxes and additions motion to vacate that order. find no reversible error. to tax and denying her We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, reasons stated by the tax court. we affirm for the See Messina v. Comm r, IRS, Tax Ct. No. 04-10926 (U.S.T.C. June 24, 2008 & filed Sept. 25, 2008; entered Sept. 26, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.