Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02166/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Respondent
Gusteva E. Widtfeldt
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2382

___________________________

James A. Widtfeldt

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

___________________________

No. 14-2444

___________________________

Estate of Gusteva Widtfeldt, Deceased, James A. Widtfeldt, Personal Representative

llllllllllllllllllllAppellant

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee

___________________________

No. 15-2166

___________________________

Estate of Gusteva E. Widtfeldt, Deceased, James Widtfeldt, Statutory Executor

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Appellate Case: 15-2166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Entry ID: 4376535 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Appeals from the United States Tax Court

____________

 Submitted: March 7, 2016

Filed: March 11, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals--two of which arise from actions that were

dismissed as duplicating the first action--James Widtfeldt appeals the tax court’s

grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a collection

due process case. Following careful de novo review, we agree with the

Commissioner that Widtfeldt was not entitled to re-litigate the tax liability of his

deceased mother’s estate, and Widtfeldt has identified no basis for reversal. See 26

U.S.C. § 6330; Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r, 594 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.

2010) (de novo review of tax court’s grant of summary judgment); Widtfeldt v.

Comm’r, 449 Fed. Appx. 561 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2012) (unpublished per curiam). We

also conclude that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the duplicate

actions. The rulings of the tax court are affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and the

Commissioner’s motion is denied as moot.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2016 Entry ID: 4376535