UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 98-60258
__________________
JIMMY G. NIXON; RITA L. NIXON,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the Decision
of the United States Tax Court
______________________________________________
February 26, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case raises an issue of first impression for this Court
concerning our appellate jurisdiction. Appellants, Jimmy and
Rita Nixon, filed a petition with the Tax Court complaining about
deficiency notices that were issued to them for the years from
1987 through 1991 and 1993 through 1996. After determining that
deficiency notices had been issued to the Nixons only for the
years 1994 and 1995, the Tax Court dismissed the Nixons’ petition
as to the other years for lack of jurisdiction. The Nixons then
filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We now consider whether
a Tax Court order disposing of only some of the claims in a
taxpayer’s petition is appealable and find that it is not.
We join the majority of the other circuit courts that have
considered this issue in finding that a decision by the Tax Court
that does not dispose of all the issues presented in a taxpayer’s
petition is not a final order for purposes of an appeal. See,
e.g., Brookes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 97-70363,
1998 WL 887057 at *4-5 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 1998) (holding that an
order partially disposing of a taxpayer’s petition was not
appealable); Shepherd v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 147
F.3d 633, 635 (7th Cir. 1998) (same); Schrader v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 916 F.2d 361, 363 (6th Cir. 1990) (same);
Yaeger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 801 F.2d 96, 97 (2d
Cir. 1986) (same). But see Inverworld, Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 979 F.2d 868, 871-75 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, unless the Tax Court enters a separate Rule 54(b)-type
order indicating that there is no just reason for delaying
appellate review of a partially resolved petition, this court
lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal until a final judgment is
entered. In so holding, we expressly adopt the sound reasoning
articulated in Judge Posner’s decision for the Seventh Circuit in
Shepherd.
As there was no Rule 54(b)-type order entered by the Tax
Court in this case, the Nixons’ appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
2