
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1525                          RICHARD M. & MILDRED E. KERRIGAN,                               Petitioners, Appellants,                                          v.                          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                       APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT                     [Hon. Thomas B. Wells, U.S. Tax Court Judge]                                            ____________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Richard M. Kerrigan and Mildred E. Kerrigan on brief pro se.            ___________________     ___________________            Loretta  C.   Argrett,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Gilbert  S.            _____________________                                  ___________        Rothenberg and  Sarah K. Knutson, Attorneys,  Tax Division, Department        __________      ________________        of Justice, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                    March 3, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   In a  decision entered  February 28,                      ___________            1996,  the United States  Tax Court found  that taxpayers Mr.            and  Mrs. Richard M. Kerrigan owed no income tax or additions            to tax  for 1989  (the  only year  before the  court).   This            decision  is  a  victory  for  the  Kerrigans,  and  we  lack            jurisdiction over their appeal from it.  See W. W. Windle Co.                                                     ___ ________________            v. Commissioner, 550  F.2d 43, 55  (1st Cir.), cert.  denied,               ____________                                _____________            431  U.S.  966  (1977).    The  Kerrigans' notice  of  appeal            indicates  that  they  also intend  to  appeal  from  the tax            court's  February 26,  1996  order denying  their motion  for            litigation costs  under  I.R.C.    7430.   Although  we  have            jurisdiction over  this appeal, see I.R.C.    7430(f)(1), the                                            ___            Kerrigans  have  waived the  issue  for failure  to  make any            developed  argument in  their brief.   See  United States  v.                                                   ___  _____________            Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.) ("[I]issues adverted to in            _______            a  perfunctory  manner,  unaccompanied  by  some   effort  at            developed argumentation, are deemed waived."),  cert. denied,                                                            ____________            494 U.S. 1082 (1990).                      Dismissed in part; affirmed  in part.  See  Loc. R.                      _____________________________________  ___            27.1.                                         -2-
