Baglivo v. CIR
| Citation | 235 F. Supp. 493 |
| Decision Date | 05 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 33576. |
| Parties | William S. BAGLIVO, Isabella Baglivo, and Central-Penn National Bank, Joseph F. Gelletich and Donald W. Lehrkinder, co-guardians for Estate of William S. Baglivo, an Incompetent, Plaintiffs, v. The COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and the District Director of Internal Revenue, for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Donald M. Collins, Oliver, Macartney & Collins, Media, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Sullivan Cistone, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., Stephen G. Fuerth, Tax Section, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
This is a motion to dismiss a complaint which asks this court to vacate a decision of the Tax Court, order a new trial, and restrain proceedings to collect the taxes found due. The facts set out in the complaint are as follows:
Statutory notices of deficiency for the years 1947 through 1953 and 1956 through 1958 were sent to the taxpayers, Dr. William S. Baglivo and his wife, Isabella. They filed petitions with the Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiencies, and that court, on February 14, 1961, and May 25, 1962, rendered decisions in favor of the Commissioner for substantially the amount of the deficiencies. No petition for review of those decisions has been filed by any of the plaintiffs although the statutory period allowed for such petitions has long since expired, and the decisions became final* more than two years ago.
On October 1, 1962, Dr. Baglivo was adjudicated an incompetent. For the purposes of this motion, it must be accepted that he is and was, from sometime prior to the sending of the first notice of deficiency, mentally ill, that at the time of the proceedings in the Tax Court (in which he was unrepresented by counsel) he was, by reason of his mental condition, unable to present an adequate defense, that since 1958 he has been without legal counsel, and that throughout the whole period his wife was under his complete control.
On May 31, 1963, the same day on which they began this action, the taxpayers and the guardians of the estate of Dr. Baglivo filed with the Tax Court motions to vacate its decision of February 14, 1961, and for a new trial. The Tax Court dismissed those motions on February 27, 1964. A petition for review of such dismissals is now pending before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In this action the parties plaintiff and the facts upon which relief is sought are the same as in the motions filed in the Tax Court. The relief asked for is (1) that the decisions of the Tax Court against the taxpayers be set aside and vacated and new trials in the Tax Court be granted, (2) that an injunction to restrain levy for and collection of any part of the taxes in question issue, and (3) that the notices of deficiency be set aside.
The plight of these plaintiffs as disclosed by this complaint does seem to call for a remedy, but I have been unable to find any legal basis upon which this action can be sustained.
If either this court or the Tax Court were common law courts of general jurisdiction, it is possible that some relief might be obtained. Both, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction whose powers are circumscribed by statutes of the United States. An illuminating review of the statutes defining the power of the court in a situation like that presented here is to be found in an opinion of this Court by Judge Freedman handed down June 30, 1964 (Quinn, Executor of Thompson v. Hook, District Director, D.C., 231 F.Supp. 718). The facts of that case are almost identical with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenner v. CIR
...Revenue (7th Cir. 1957), 243 F.2d 907; Quinn v. Hook (D.C.E.D.Pa. 1964), 231 F.Supp. 718, aff'd 341 F.2d 920; Baglivo v. C.I.R. (D.C.E.D.Pa. 1964), 235 F.Supp. 493. 6 Helvering v. Northern Coal Co. (1934), 293 U.S. 191, 55 S.Ct. 3, 79 L.Ed. 281; Simpson & Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Revenue......
-
Galanti v. United States
...(now Circuit) Judge Freedman in Quinn v. Hook, District Director, D.C.Pa.1964, 231 F.Supp. 718, and cited also Baglivio v. Commissioner, D.C.Pa.1964, 235 F. Supp. 493. In Quinn, Judge Freedman held the provisions of § 2410 unavailable to a plaintiff in a situation substantially similar to t......
-
United States v. Howard
...Sprague Elec. Co. v. Tax Court, 230 F.Supp. 779 (D.Mass.1964), aff'd. 340 F.2d 947 (1st Cir.1965); Baglivo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 235 F.Supp. 493 (E. D.Pa.1964). Aside from that, the judgment entered in the Tax Court in April, 1958, is res judicata on that tax liability of the......
-
US v. Ashton, Civ. A. No. 86-2386.
...to collateral attack. Quinn v. Hook, 231 F.Supp. 718, 723-724 (E.D.Pa.1964), aff'd, 341 F.2d 920 (3d Cir.1965); Baglivo v. Commissioner, 235 F.Supp. 493, 494 (E.D.Pa.1964). An appropriate order will be ORDER AND NOW August 17, 1987 in accordance with the foregoing memorandum opinion, IT IS ......