Stix Friedman & Co., Inc. v. Coyle
| Citation | 467 F.2d 474 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1212.,72-1212. |
| Parties | STIX FRIEDMAN & CO., INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. Eugene C. COYLE, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Henry C. Lowenhaupt, Richard D. Fitzgibbon, Owen T. Armstrong, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant; Lowenhaupt, Chasnoff, Freeman, Holland & Mellitz, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel.
Jane M. Edmisten, Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Bennet N. Hollander, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee; Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U.S. Atty., of counsel.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, District Judge.*
In this case the appellant-taxpayer, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., brought an action in a Missouri state court, which appellee removed to the federal district court, to redetermine the amount of taxpayer's deficiencies, if any, in its payment of income taxes for the years 1965 and 1966. Taxpayer also requested that appellee District Director of Internal Revenue be enjoined from asserting or collecting any deficiencies for these years pending a judicial determination of its tax liability.
Taxpayer had originally filed a petition for redetermination of tax liability in the Tax Court of the United States, but, following the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1969,1 the taxpayer requested the Tax Court to take no further action and instead it filed this action in state court. The Tax Reform Act changed the status of the Tax Court from an agency of the Executive Branch of the government to an institution purporting to be a legislative court under Article I of the Constitution. Taxpayer alleges that this statutory alteration of the status of the Tax Court is unconstitutional.2
Following the removal of the taxpayer's action to the federal district court, the district court (Judge Meredith) denied the taxpayer's request to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2282, holding that the constitutional question raised was not substantial. The court also held that the taxpayer's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were specifically prohibited by statute, and the court therefore dismissed the action. From this determination the taxpayer appeals. We agree with the disposition made by Judge Meredith and affirm on the basis of his written opinion reported at 340 F.Supp. 4 (E.D.Mo.1972).
*...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowlee v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...courts under article I of the Constitution. See, e.g., Raetzsch v. United States, 575 F.2d 549 (5th 1978); Stix Freidman & Co. v. Coyle, 467 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1972); Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner, 358 F.2d 636 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 918 (1966); Martin v. Commissio......
-
Continental Equities, Inc. v. C. I. R.
...T.C. 392 (1971), 1971 CCH Tax Ct. Rep. P 31,114, pp. 3679, 3681; Stix Friedman & Co. v. Coyle, 340 F.Supp. 4 (E.D.Mo.1972), aff'd, 467 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1972); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 6, p. 13 & § 11, p. 37, (3d ed. 1976).13 See, e. g., §§ 952 & 95714 See, e. g., §§ 953 & 956.15......
-
HABERTHIER v. Commissioner
...the Constitution. E.g., Raetzsch v. United States, 575 F. 2d 549 (5th Cir. 1978); Stix Friedman & Co.v. Coyle 72-2 USTC ¶ 9692, 467 F. 2d 474 (8th Cir. 1972); Nash Miami Motors, Inc. v. Commissioner 66-1 USTC ¶ 9354, 358 F. 2d 636 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 385 U.S. 918 (1966); Martin v. Comm......
-
Shenker v. C.I.R.
...F.2d 1226, 1229 & n. 2 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 967, 100 S.Ct. 2946, 64 L.Ed.2d 827 (1980); Stix Friedman & Co., Inc. v. Coyle, 467 F.2d 474 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), aff'g 340 F.Supp. 4 (E.D.Mo.1972), and we see no substance in Mrs. Shenker's argument that Northern Pipeline ca......