NO'I‘E: This order is n0nprecedentia1. United States Court of AppeaIs for the Federal Circuit JOSEPH KEEFE AND MARGUERITE KEEFE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-AppelZan,ts, V. UNITED STATES, Defen,dants-Appellees. 2008-5116, -5118, -5119, -512O, -5121, -5122, -5123, -5124, -5125, -5126, -5127, -5128, -513O, -5131, -5132, -5133, -5134, -5135, -5136, -5137, -5138, -514O, -5141, -5142, -5143, -5144, -5145, -5146, -5147, -5148, -5149, -5150, -5151, -5152, -5154, -5155, -5156, -5157, -5158, -5159, -516O, -5161, -5162, -5163, ~5164, -5165, -5166, -5167, -5168, -5169, -5170, -517l, and -5172 Appea1s from the United States C0urt of Federa1 C1aims in various cases, Judge lawrence J. B10ck. ON MOTION Bef01'e LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, C'ircu,it Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. ' 0RDER

KEEFE V. US 2 The United States moves to summarily affirm the judgments of the United States Court of Federal C1aims in the above-captioned appeals.* The appellants oppose. The United States replies. The appellants move to con- tinue to stay these cases pending the disposition by the United States Supreme Court of petitions for writ of certiorari related to this court’s combined decision in Prati v. United States, 2008-5l17, 603 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Deegan r). Unitecl States, 2008~5129, 603 F.3d 1301. In the alternative, the appellants move to stay these cases pending disposition of two additional repre- sentative cases to resolve what appellants assert are remaining unresolved issues. ` On June 22, 2009, this court stayed proceedings in the above-captioned cases pending disposition of two repre- sentative cases, Prati v. United Stcctes, 2008-5117 and Deegom, u. Un,ited States, 2008-5129. In these two cases, the taxpayers claimed that they were due refunds on two grounds: first, they argued that the Internal Revenue Service assessed tax and interest after the statute of limitations expired Second, the taxpayers argued they were due refunds of penalty interest paid because their underpayments were not attributable to “tax motivated transactions." This court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that the taxpayers claims for refunds were attributable to partnership items and thus not within that court’s jurisdiction. Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate “when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists." Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Ci_r. 1994). ln the above-captioned cases, the appellants’ claims are the same as the claims asserted " For purposes of this order, we use a combined cap- tion. The cases are not consolidated.

3 KEEFE V. US in either Prati or Deegcm. Based on our decision in Prati, it is clear that summary affirmance is warranted in all the above-captioned appeals. We see no basis for staying these cases pending disposition of petitions for writ of certiorari in Prati and Deegan.. Accordingly, I'r ls ORDERED THAT: (1) The appellants’ motions to continue the stay are denied. (2) The United States’ motions to summarily affirm are granted = _ (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COUR'I' DEC 09 2010 131 nn Horbaiy Date J an Horbaly Clerk ccc Sallie W. Gladney, Esq. Deborah K. Snyder, Esq. 520 men U.S. COURT OF APPEA FOR THE FEDERAl. ClRC}l:lSlT lJEC 0 9 2010 lAN |iJRBALY CLERK