Jay Briley v. Commissioner of IRS, No. 15-1461 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1461 JAY BONANZA BRILEY; CONSTANCE H. BRILEY, Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 31182-09) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay Bonanza Briley, Constance H. Briley, Appellants Pro Se. Bruce R. Ellisen, John A. Nolet, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jay Bonanza Briley and Constance H. Briley appeal from the tax court’s orders upholding the Commissioner’s deficiency determination as to their 2004 and 2005 income tax liabilities and assessment of penalties, and denying their motion to vacate that order. On appeal, the Commissioner asserts that the tax court lacked jurisdiction due to the Brileys’ late filing of their petition for redetermination. court petition § 6213(a) is (2012). a jurisdictional The Brileys’ petition was December 22, 2009. December 23, The timely filing of a tax 2009. See 26 prerequisite. deadline for 26 U.S.C. filing their Their petition was postmarked U.S.C. petition filed when properly mailed). § 7502 (2012) (deeming Because the petition was not timely filed, the tax court lacked jurisdiction to address the Brileys’ petition. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (“The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction to enjoin any action or proceeding or order any refund under this subsection unless a timely petition for a redetermination of the deficiency has been filed.”). Accordingly, we vacate the tax court’s orders and remand this case to the tax court with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
