65 F.2d 178 (D.D.C. 1933), 5656, Fleitmann v. Burnet

Docket Nº:5656.
Citation:65 F.2d 178
Party Name:FLEITMANN v. BURNET, Com'r of Internal Revenue.
Case Date:April 03, 1933
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 178

65 F.2d 178 (D.D.C. 1933)



BURNET, Com'r of Internal Revenue.

No. 5656.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

April 3, 1933

Argued February 17, 1933.

Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Howe P. Cochran, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

G. A. Youngquist, Sewall Key, Morton K. Rothschild, C. M. Charest, and Bruce A. Low, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

GRONER, Associate Justice.

The appeal in this case involves income taxes for the year 1918 in the amount of $23,945.57, of which $3,895.67 have been paid, and is taken from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.

The board found the facts substantially as follows: On February 7, 1924, the commissioner notified the taxpayer that he proposed to assess $42,702.50 additional tax for 1918. He asked for a waiver of the statute of limitations as a condition of not making this assessment.

Page 179

The taxpayer protested the assessment and sent in a waiver dated February 18, 1924, extending the period of assessment and collection for one year. The proposed tax was nevertheless assessed March 8, 1924, and in that same month the taxpayer filed a claim for an entire abatement. The first waiver carried the period of extension to February 18, 1925. Subsequent waivers were filed as follows: February 18, 1926; November 18, 1926; December 15, 1927; October 17, 1928; September 27, 1929. The board found that in each instance the waiver was requested by the respondent and that it was pursuant to these request that waivers were signed and sent in by the petitioner. Petitioner, however, contends that the waivers were invalid in that they were not personally signed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The waivers in question, as in the case of Fleitmann & Crimmins, Executors, v. Commissioner, 62 App. D. C. 88, 65 F.2d 176 (decided this day), were signed in the commissioner's name by subordinates in the department who were duly authorized in respect thereto by their immediate superiors, who in turn had been delegated that authority by the commissioner. There was a rule of the department which required all waivers received from taxpayers to be referred to the head of the division in which the case was then under consideration, and this head of the division was required to determine...

To continue reading