Arkansas Motor Coaches v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 14530.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, , and THOMAS and JOHNSEN, Circuit
Citation198 F.2d 189
Decision Date14 July 1952
Docket NumberNo. 14530.
PartiesARKANSAS MOTOR COACHES, Limited, Inc. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

198 F.2d 189 (1952)

ARKANSAS MOTOR COACHES, Limited, Inc.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 14530.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

July 14, 1952.


198 F.2d 190

Wentworth T. Durant, Dallas, Tex. (Larry Taylor, Jr. and Callahan & Durant, Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for petitioner.

Melva M. Graney, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Ellis N. Slack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Virginia H. Adams, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and THOMAS and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

GARDNER, Chief Judge.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court of the United States dismissing for lack of jurisdiction petitioner's petition for redetermination of excess profit taxes for the year 1942 under the provisions of Section 722 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 722. Petitioner is an Arkansas Corporation engaged in the transportation of passengers and baggage in interstate commerce. For the calendar year 1942 it filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue at Little Rock, Arkansas, its tax return and on September 2, 1942 it filed its claim for relief under Section 722(b) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code, contending that its excess profit tax as computed was excessive and discriminatory because its average base period net income was an inadequate standard of normal earnings. It sought a refund in the sum of $68,201.22. The Commissioner under date November 7, 1950, allowed petitioner's claim to the extent of $5,658.56 and disallowed the balance of the claim and on said date notified petitioner by registered mail.

Petitioner was entitled to ninety days after the date of mailing of the Commissioner's notice in which to file a petition for review with The Tax Court of the United States and on January 30, 1951 at 2:00 p. m., the eighty-fourth day after the mailing of the Commissioner's notice, it deposited its petition for review in the United States Post Office at Dallas, Texas, directed to be sent by air mail. The package was securely wrapped, properly addressed to the Clerk of the United States Tax Court at Washington, D. C., and the air mail postage fully paid as indicated by postage stamps affixed thereto. In the ordinary course of the United States mails the package would have been received in Washington, D. C. on January 31, 1951. Sometime after being mailed at Dallas, Texas, the words "Received in bad condition at Washington, D. C." were stamped on the package in two places. The Tax Court docket contains the entry, "1951, Feb. 6 — Petition received and filed. Taxpayer filed." February 6 was the ninety-first day following the mailing of the Commissioner's notice to petitioner.

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was filed out of time, which motion was granted. Petitioner seeks a review of the final order of the court dismissing its petition for lack of jurisdiction.

In seeking reversal petitioner contends that: (1) through no fault of its own petitioner finds itself in an unconscionable position, particularly since the merits of petitioner's tax liability can only be heard by the Tax Court under Section 722(c) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) assuming arguendo that the petition was not received and filed until the ninety-first day the Tax Court erred in not taking jurisdiction of the petition for redetermination because

198 F.2d 191
pertinent equitable circumstances in favor of petitioner tolled the running of the statutory filing period; (3) the Tax Court erred in finding and holding that the petition for redetermination was filed and received on February 6, 1951. The docket entry dated February 6, 1951, standing alone, is not evidence of actual receipt; the presumption of receipt in the course of the mails was not rebutted by respondent

The only remedy which was open to petitioner was that attempted to be pursued by it. In other words, it could not have paid the tax under protest and then brought suit to recover. Section 722, Internal Revenue Code; George Kemp Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 182 F.2d 847; Colonial Amusement Co. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 568. If, therefore, the order of dismissal is sustained, the petitioner will have been deprived of its day in court. Judge Kern, before whom the motion to dismiss was heard, was apparently impressed with the good faith efforts of petitioner to have its day in court for during the discussion he said: "The equities are so definite, the fact that this petition was mailed in plenty of time to get to Washington in the ordinary course of the mails, and it was through no fault of yours that it was received in a bad condition and delayed and did not get to us until — what was it, the 91st day? It is a painful proposition." If equities may be invoked they speak very strongly in favor of petitioner and it is repugnant to our system of jurisprudence that any person shall be deprived of his "day in court." In this frame of mind we turn to a consideration of the facts and applicable law.

Acting in good faith and with due diligence petitioner entrusted its petition to the United States mails for transportation from Dallas, Texas, to Washington, D. C., in ample time so that it could be filed and served within the ninety days from the mailing of the notice of rejection of its claim by the Commissioner. It used the same agency for transmitting its petition as the Commissioner had used in transmitting his notice. Where, as in this case, matter is transmitted by the United States mails, properly addressed and postage fully prepaid, there is a strong presumption that it will be received by the addressee in the ordinary course of the mails. Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co., 140 U.S. 25, 11 S.Ct. 691, 35 L.Ed. 332; Crude Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 809, 810. While the presumption is a rebuttable one it is a very strong presumption and can only be rebutted by specific facts and not by invoking another presumption. In Crude Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, Judge Phillips, speaking for the court, among other things said:

"The
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Gibbs, No. 86-1370
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 27, 1987
    ...but where a value of stolen goods in excess of $100 was alleged in the indictment, a sentence on the greater offense could stand. 198 F.2d at 189. In Ciongoli, Judge Hastie explained that in a charge of misappropriation of government property, "no particular value of the stolen property nee......
  • U.S. v. Lancer, No. 73-1795
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 30, 1975
    ...imposed under Indictment No. 13295 was necessarily based upon a value of $100 or less, since the indictment did not allege value . . ..' 198 F.2d 189. Page The cases. 24 cited by the government in an effort to sustain the sentence imposed upon Lancer, are inapposite, as in each of them, the......
  • Charlson Realty Company v. United States, No. 388-62.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • October 13, 1967
    ...Ct.Cl. 618 (1955); Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1952); Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd., Inc. v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 189 (8th Cir. 1952); Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955); Bolduc v. United States, 189 F.Supp. 640 (D.Maine......
  • Iowa Lamb Corp. v. Kalene Industries, Inc., No. C 94-4094.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • December 19, 1994
    ...in usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed."); see also Arkansas Motor Coaches v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir.1952); Godfrey v. United States, 997 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir.1993); In re East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc., 961 F.2d 1543, 1545 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
56 cases
  • U.S. v. Gibbs, No. 86-1370
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 27, 1987
    ...but where a value of stolen goods in excess of $100 was alleged in the indictment, a sentence on the greater offense could stand. 198 F.2d at 189. In Ciongoli, Judge Hastie explained that in a charge of misappropriation of government property, "no particular value of the stolen property nee......
  • U.S. v. Lancer, No. 73-1795
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 30, 1975
    ...imposed under Indictment No. 13295 was necessarily based upon a value of $100 or less, since the indictment did not allege value . . ..' 198 F.2d 189. Page The cases. 24 cited by the government in an effort to sustain the sentence imposed upon Lancer, are inapposite, as in each of them, the......
  • Charlson Realty Company v. United States, No. 388-62.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • October 13, 1967
    ...Ct.Cl. 618 (1955); Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1952); Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd., Inc. v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 189 (8th Cir. 1952); Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955); Bolduc v. United States, 189 F.Supp. 640 (D.Maine......
  • Iowa Lamb Corp. v. Kalene Industries, Inc., No. C 94-4094.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • December 19, 1994
    ...in usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed."); see also Arkansas Motor Coaches v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir.1952); Godfrey v. United States, 997 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir.1993); In re East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc., 961 F.2d 1543, 1545 (......
  • 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