Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. AIVALIKLES, Defendant, Appellant., United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit, No. 03-1846, February 24, 2004

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. AIVALIKLES, Defendant, Appellant., United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit, No. 03-1846, February 24, 2004

24.06.2008  

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. AIVALIKLES, Defendant, Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 03-1846

February 24, 2004

Unpublished Opinion

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge ]

______________

Before

Lynch, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges .

______________

William Aivalikles on brief pro se.

Karen G. Gregory , Attorney, Tax Division, Department of Justice, David English Carmack , Attorney, Tax Division, Department of Justice, and Eileen J. O'Connor , Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

_________________

February 24, 2004

_________________

Per Curiam . William Aivalikles, an attorney acting pro se , appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government in this tax deficiency case brought under 26 U.S.C. ╖╖ 7401-7403. In response to the government's motion, which was supported with certified assessments for the tax years in question, appellant offered only an affidavit containing unspecific and unsubstantiated assertions that the assessments overstated the amount of unpaid tax, which he certified as "true to the best of [his] knowledge and belief." The district court properly found the affidavit insufficient to demonstrate any triable issue with regard to the correctness of the tax deficiency assessments. See Perez v. Volvo Car Corp. , 247 F.3d 303, 318 (1st Cir. 2001); Cadle Co. v. Haves , 116 F.3d 957, 960-61 (1st Cir. 1997).

Affirmed . See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Хитров Дмитрий
Хитров Дмитрий

Компания «Электронный арбитраж»

Почему в суд выгодно представлять именно электронные документы?

Право и возможность подачи электронных документов в суд предоставлено в России давно. Однако по старинке стороны ходят на заседания с большими папками бумажных документов вместо планшетов или ноутбуков. Почему?

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Ошибки риэлтора могут помешать получению имущественного вычета

При совершении сделок при покупке или продаже жилья советую быть внимательным при подписании договора купли-продажи. В противном случае покупатель не сможет вернуть НДФЛ в полном размере.

24