Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03021/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Michael A. Lukes
Appellant

Document Text:

' 

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL A. LUKES, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FI LED 

~Jt1iced Scates Court of Appeals '~or .... ~ r : ... , ...... ; .. I • ~ - - • ··, • 

SEP 1 G 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No . 88-3021 

(Tax Court No. 29000-85) 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges . 

This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax 

court . The Commissioner has moved for dismissal on the 

j urisdictional ground that Mr . Lukes' notice of appeal was not 

timely because it was received by the Tax Court one day too late. 

* This order and 

not be cited, or 

except for purposes 

the case, res 

Cir . R. 36.3. 

judgment has no precedential value and shall 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th 

Appellate Case: 88-3021 Document: 01019973783 Date Filed: 09/18/1989 Page: 1 
• 

• The Commissioner correctly argues that the untimeliness of the 

notice of appeal deprives us of jurisdiction. 

Commissioner, 403 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1968). 1 

Toledano v. 

This appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

Mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

1 Because Mr. Lukes' prose brief states that the only basis 

for his appeal is to obtain a mathematical recomputation of his 

tax liability, we have independently examined the record despite 

our lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Lukes asserts the Tax Court made a 

mathematical error because it failed to allow him a personal 

deduction for real estate taxes and interest paid. Our review 

discloses Mr. Lukes was allowed a standard deduction of $2,300 

instead of the itemized deduction of $2,308 which he claimed. The 

difference between the standard deduction and the itemized 

deduction has no effect on Mr. Lukes' tax liability. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-3021 Document: 01019973783 Date Filed: 09/18/1989 Page: 2