Jack Issa v. CIR, No. 10-1451 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Appeal from the U.S. Tax Court. Taxpayer's claim that the IRS is not a government agency is rejected as frivolous, and the court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment; the tax court's decision is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1451 ___________ Jack J. Issa, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: August 24, 2010 Filed: September 1, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this tax-deficiency action, Jack Issa appeals the tax court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment and denial of his motion under Tax Court Rule 161 to vacate the summary judgment decision. Issa has also filed two motions requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, in which he asserts among other things that the IRS is not a government agency. After careful de novo review, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm r, 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3653 (U.S. Apr. 30, 1 The Honorable Maurice B. Foley, United States Tax Court Judge. 2010) (No. 09-1339), we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the tax court. We also conclude that the tax court did not err in denying Issa s motion to vacate. See Estate of Quick v. Comm r, 110 T.C. 440, 441 (1998) (describing limited purpose of reconsideration under Rule 161). As to the pending motions, we lack jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment, see 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201(a), and we reject as frivolous Issa s assertion that the IRS is not a government agency. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions, and we affirm the tax court s decision. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
