United States v. Davison

── United States v. Davison ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3054 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-3054 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-02144-JAR- ALLEN R. DAVISON, RES) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The Internal Revenue Service imposed tax penalties against the defendant, Mr. Allen Davison, sparking two rounds of litigation. The first round took place before the Tax Court, which rejected Mr. Davison’s challenge to the tax penalties; the second round of litigation took place in district court, where the government sought to reduce the penalties to a judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, * Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).  Appellate Case: 25-3054 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 2 relying on issue preclusion based on the Tax Court’s rejection of the same arguments. Mr. Davison appeals the grant of summary judgment. But in issuing the subsequent judgment, the court didn’t state the amount of the penalty or who owes it. While the appeal was pending, however, the district court tried to add the missing information. The government asks us to recognize the amended judgment even though it was issued after Mr. Davison had appealed. The sequence of events triggers three procedural issues: 1. Recognition of the amended judgment: The threshold issue is whether we can recognize the amended judgment, which set the amount and identified the party owing the penalties, even though Mr. Davison had appealed the original judgment. Ordinarily a district court can amend a judgment by stating the amount and who owes it. But Mr. Davison had already appealed before the district court added this information. Because the matter had already been appealed, the district court could amend the judgment only with leave of court; and we hadn’t granted such leave. So the amended judgment is a nullity. 2. Appealability of the original judgment: The incomplete nature of the original judgment triggers a question involving our jurisdiction. For appellate jurisdiction, we ordinarily need a final decision; and Mr. Davison had appealed before the district court said how much is owed or who owes it. Because the omitted information w