Case Name: EQUIPMENT HOLDING COMPANY, L.L.C.; Ronald J. Adams, Petitioners-Appellees v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-29
Citations: 439 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 09-60866
Parties: EQUIPMENT HOLDING COMPANY, L.L.C.; Ronald J. Adams, Petitioners-Appellees v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
EQUIPMENT HOLDING COMPANY, L.L.C.; Ronald J. Adams, Petitioners-Appellees v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 09-60866
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 2011.
Damon W. Taaffe, John Dicicco, U.S. Department of Justice, Blaise G. Dusenberry, William J. Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Eddy Manuel Quijano, Arroyo Grande, CA, Harry Alston Johnson, III, Jeffrey W. Koonce, Esq., Attorney, Cherish D. Van Mullem, Esq., Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Commissioner of Internal Revenue appeals from a final order of the Tax Court. The sole issue presented is whether an understatement of income resulting from an overstatement of the tax basis of sold property can qualify as an omission from gross income giving rise to the extended, six-year period for tax assessment. A panel of this Court has decided this question on facts materially identical to the facts in the instant case and concluded that such an overstatement does not trigger the extended six-year assessment period in the Tax Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6501(e)(1)(A). Burks v. United States, 633 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (Aug. 11, 2011) (NO. 11-178, 11A9). The argument presented by the Commissioner is foreclosed by our circuit precedent, and the Commissioner recognizes the binding precedent, but nevertheless argues that Burks was wrongly decided to preserve the issue in the event the Supreme Court grants certiorari and reverses, vacates, or otherwise disturbs our decision in Burks. This panel is bound by our precedent.
The judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.