Charles Adams v. Commissioner of IRS, No. 16-1043 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1043 CHARLES DERECK ADAMS; MELINDA ELIZABETH ADAMS, Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 015556-13) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Dereck Adams, Melinda Elizabeth Adams, Appellants Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Senior Attorney, Richard Farber, Curtis Clarence Pett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., William J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Dereck Adams and Melinda Elizabeth Adams seek to appeal the assessment Adamses’ tax of 2010 court’s a order deficiency federal sustaining and income penalty tax the with liability. Commissioner’s respect We to the dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. A notice of appeal from a decision of the tax court must be filed within ninety days after the decision is entered. 26 U.S.C. § 7483 (2012); Spencer Med. Assocs. v. Comm’r, 155 F.3d 268, 269 (4th Cir. 1998). The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213–14 (2007). The tax court’s order was entered on the docket on August 26, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on January 12, 2016. Because taxpayers failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and because this jurisdictional appeal period is not subject to equitable tolling, see Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with deny oral the Appellants’ argument motion because the to compel facts and and we legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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.
