Parks v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 67563.

Decision Date23 November 1959
Docket NumberDocket No. 67563.
Citation33 T.C. 298
PartiesEARLE C. PARKS AND BERNICE D. PARKS, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
CourtU.S. Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Earle C. Parks, Esq., pro se.

Raymond T. Mahon, Esq., for the respondent.

1. Determination of deficiency as to 1952 held not barred by petitioners' claim of ‘accord and satisfaction.’

2. Addition to tax under section 294(d)(1)(A), I.R.C. 1939, sustained.

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' income tax and additions thereto, as follows:

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦            ¦Additions to tax, I.R.C. 1939            ¦
                +------+------------+-----------------------------------------¦
                ¦Year  ¦Deficiency  ¦Sec. 294 (d) (1) (A)  ¦Sec. 294 (d) (2)  ¦
                +------+------------+----------------------+------------------¦
                ¦1952  ¦$2,279.36   ¦None                  ¦$833.59           ¦
                +------+------------+----------------------+------------------¦
                ¦1954  ¦949.66      ¦$1,184.92             ¦710.96            ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------+
                

The principal questions are:

1. Was there an ‘accord and satisfaction’ between petitioners and respondent with respect to petitioners' income tax liability for 1952 so as to preclude respondent from assessing additional taxes for that year?

2. Are petitioners relieved of liability for addition to tax under section 294(d)(1)(A) for failure to file a declaration of estimated tax for 1954 by reason of certain alleged representations made by or in the presence of an assistant district director of internal revenue?

FINDINGS OF FACT.

Petitioners, husband and wife residing in Belmont, Massachusetts, filed joint income tax returns for the calendar years 1952 and 1954 with the district director of internal revenue for the district of Massachusetts. Earle C. Parks, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, is a practicing attorney at law and is a member of the bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States District Court for Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court, and the Tax Court of the United States.

Petitioners filed their 1952 return on or about March 16, 1953, reporting a tax of $14,705.88 and a ‘balance of tax due’ in the amount of $11,613.88 after withholding and payments on their 1952 Declaration of Estimated Tax. Petitioners did not then pay the balance due. At that time they also owed back taxes for the years 1950 and 1951 which, pursuant to an arrangement made at some undisclosed time, they were paying at the rate of $1,000 a month. By March 1954, $10,000 of petitioners' 1952 taxes as reported on the 1952 return remained unpaid, and a lien had been placed upon real estate owned by petitioner to insure payment of such tax.

In March 1954, petitioner was called to a conference at the Boston office of the district director. Present at this conference were petitioner, his law partner, Frank C. Hession, and two revenue agents attached to the district director's office. Petitioner was informed of the lien that had been placed upon his property and was requested to make payment of the balance due on his 1952 return. As a result of this conference and an examination of petitioner's books and records incident thereto, it was agreed that the lien would be lifted if petitioner raised the requisite $10,000 by placing a mortgage on his home. Shortly thereafter, at a second conference, petitioner paid the amount due with a check representing the proceeds of a mortgage placed on his home, and the lien was discharged. Present at this second conference were petitioner, the assistant district director, Charles J. King, and two revenue agents, one of whom had attended the earlier conference. After presentation of the check for 1952, such payments to be applied firs against petitioner's tax liability for 1953, and then against his liability for 1954. Although some discussion was had with respect to petitioner's possible liability for ‘penalties' for 1954, neither King, nor any other internal revenue official present at the conference, represented to petitioner that only one ‘penalty’ would be assessed against him in the event he failed to file a declaration of estimated tax for 1954. Petitioners failed to file a declaration of estimated tax for 1954.

Sometime after the second conference, ‘in either the fall of 1954 or the spring of 1955,‘ a revenue agent named James Hooley examined petitioner's books and records for 1952, 1953, and 1954. This examination covered a period of 10 months during which time Hooley spent 2 or 3 days per month in petitioners' office. Petitioner did not hear from Hooley again after the expiration of the 10-month period. A month or two after Hooley's departure, petitioner's books for 1952, 1953, and 1954 were examined again by a revenue agent named Martin Berg. Berg visited petitioner's office every day for a period of 3 weeks. Petitioner told both Hooley and Berg that he objected to their examinations with respect to 1952 on the ground that thay year had been ‘settled’ or ‘closed.’

Form 872, attached to petitioners' 1952 return and entitled ‘Consent Fixing Period of Limitation Upon Assessment of Income and Profits Tax’ was executed by petitioners on January 24, 1956, and by the Commissioner on February 16, 1956; it extended to June 30, 1957, the period for assessing additional income tax for the taxable year 1952. On July 6, 1956, petitioner received respondent's letter of intent to determine deficiencies for 1952, 1953, and 1954, and petitioner filed a protest thereto on July 31, 1956. The protest stated in part as follows:

1952— this return was priorly audited and finally settled and a tax lien removed. Taxpayers claim no further adjustment is due, nor any penalty chargeable.

1954— taxpayers object to penalties imposed, especially under Sec. 194(d)(1) (A) upon ground that director's office advised paying taxes due for prior years and that no penalty would be charged.

The deficiency notice involved in this case was mailed to petitioner on March 4, 1957.

OPINION.

RAUM, Judge:

1. Petitioners do not challenge the correctness of the Commissioner's determination as to 1952. Instead, they argue that there has been an ‘accord and satisfaction,‘ a compromise or settlement for 1952, between them and the then collector of internal revenue for the Boston district; and that the Commissioner is therefore precluded from determining any deficiency as to 1952.

(a) In the first place, it is highly dubious whether this issue is properly pleaded. Rule 7(c)(4)(B) of our Rule of Practice requires a petitioner to include in paragraph 4 of his petition ‘clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiency,‘ and provides further that '(e)ach assignment of error shall be lettered.’ Also, the same rule provides that paragraph 5 of the petition must contain (c)lear and concise lettered statements of the facts upon which the petitioner relies as sustaining the assignments of error.’ See Nathan Goldsmith, 31 T.C. 56, 63.

These requirements are not idle technicalities. It is important to the orderly conduct of a lawsuit that both the Court and the opposing party be properly informed by the pleadings as to precisely what issues are presented for decision.

Petitioner's paragraph 4, to the extent that it relates to the year 1952, consists of two sentences which are set forth in full in the margin.1 The first sentence deals with the basic deficiency and nothing therein, or in the schedules referred to, in any way is concerned with the defense of ‘accord and satisfaction.’ The second sentence deals only with the so-called ‘penalty,‘ and nothing set forth therein could possibly be described as a ‘clear and concise’ assignment of error based on ‘accord and satisfaction.’ To be sure, the second sentence does undertake to say that the ‘penalty’ was in error ‘for the reasons set forth hereafter,'2 and there is some language in paragraph 5, which, in the light of the contention made by petitioner for the first time at the hearing, could possibly be construed to relate to ‘accord and satisfaction.’ But, at best from petitioner's point of view, (1) paragraph 4 itself is faulty under our rules, (2) it deals in this regard only with the ‘penalty’ and not with the basic tax, and (3) even if paragraph 5 may be engrafted upon paragraph 4— a situation not contemplated by our rules, since we look to paragraph...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Rodriguez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 19 Febrero 1986
    ...Accord: Findlay v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 580, 588-589 (1962), aff'd 332 F.2d 620 (2d Cir.1964) (unrelated matter rev'd); Parks v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 298 (1959). Similarly, the issuance of a refund does not estop the IRS from later collection of an amount the taxpayer owes. In Warner v. C......
  • In re Mungan, Bankruptcy No. 01-31472.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 18 Noviembre 2002
    ...satisfaction of [his] tax liability, that agreement would not bind [the IRS]." Foulds, 56 T.C.M. (CCH) 1112 (citing Parks v. Comm'r, 33 T.C. 298, 301, 1959 WL 941 (1959)). The Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that their payment of $359.84 was a compromise of their entire tax liability ......
  • Estate of Bommer v. Commissioner, Docket No. 15485-94.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 4 Mayo 1995
    ...[56-1 USTC ¶ 11,600], 231 F.2d 465 (C.A. 7, 1956); George H. Baker [Dec. 21,234], 24 T.C. 1021, 1024 (1955); and Earl C. Parks [Dec. 23,848], 33 T.C. 298, 302 (1959), acq. 1960-1 C.B. 5. That section envisages an agreement knowingly entered into by both parties. H.M. Harrington, Jr. [Dec. 2......
  • Estate of Meyer v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 2860-71.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 17 Abril 1972
    ...655 (C.A. 7, 1965); Bennett v. United States, 231 F.2d 465 (C.A. 7, 1956); George H. Baker, 24 T.C. 1021, 1024 (1955); and Earl C. Parks, 33 T.C. 298, 302 (1959), acq. 1960-1 C.B. 5. That section envisages an agreement knowingly entered into by both parties.1 H. M. Harrington, Jr., 48 T.C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT