
    Joseph KEEFE and Marguerite Keefe, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 2008-5116, 2008-5118, 2008-5119, 2008-5120, 2008-5121, 2008-5122, 2008-5123, 2008-5124, 2008-5125, 2008-5126, 2008-5127, 2008-5128, 2008-5130, 2008-5131, 2008-5132, 2008-5133, 2008-5134, 2008-5135, 2008-5136, 2008-5137, 2008-5138, 2008-5140, 2008-5141, 2008-5142, 2008-5143, 2008-5144, 2008-5145, 2008-5146, 2008-5147, 2008-5148, 2008-5149, 2008-5150, 2008-5151, 2008-5152, 2008-5154, 2008-5155, 2008-5156, 2008-5157, 2008-5158, 2008-5159, 2008-5160, 2008-5161, 2008-5162, 2008-5163, 2008-5164, 2008-5165, 2008-5166, 2008-5167, 2008-5168, 2008-5169, 2008-5170, 2008-5171, and 2008-5172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Dec. 9, 2010.
    Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

ORDER

DYK, Circuit Judge.

The United States moves to summarily affirm the judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims in the above-captioned appeals. The appellants oppose. The United States replies. The appellants move to continue 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, 2008-5117, 603 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2010) and Deegan v. United States, 2008-5129, 603 F.3d 1301. In the alternative, the appellants move to stay these cases pending disposition of two additional representative 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 representative cases, Prati v. United States, 2008-5117 and Deegan v. United 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 ease 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.Cir.1994). In the above-captioned cases, the appellants’ claims are the same as the claims asserted in either Prati or Deegan. 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,

It Is 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 purposes of this order, we use a combined caption. The cases are not consolidated.
     