Bear Mill Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 October 1950 |
| Citation | 93 F. Supp. 988 |
| Parties | BEAR MILL MFG. CO., Inc. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Howie & Robertson, New York City, for plaintiff.
Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City, William F. Passannante, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
Motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.
The plaintiff seeks a refund of United States Income and Excess Profits Taxes for the year 1941. In 1942 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency in Income and Excess Profits Taxes for the year 1941 based on excessive salaries paid to plaintiff's stockholder officers.
In 1944 plaintiff filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue a claim for refund of United States Income and Excess Profits Taxes for the year 1941 based upon the payment by the plaintiff to the City of New York of additional New York City gross receipts taxes for the year 1941.
By letter 90 day letter dated October 4, 1944, plaintiff was notified of the determination of deficiencies for 1941 and was advised that if he filed a petition to the Tax Court against the deficiency proposed, the issue set forth in his claim for a refund should be made a part of the petition to be considered by the Tax Court in any redetermination of its tax liability.
On December 26, 1944, taxpayer filed a petition with the Tax Court from the 90 day letter. The excessive salary issue was the only issue presented to the tax court in the petition. The Tax Court, in its opinion entered April 18, 1946, made no mention of the claimed overpayment of taxes and held "That there are deficiencies in income and excess profits taxes for the year 1941 in the respective amounts of $3,734.02 and $10,054.78". No appeal was taken from this decision and the deficiencies were paid by the taxpayer.
On December 3, 1946 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue notified the plaintiff by registered mail that the aforesaid claim for refund was disallowed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3772(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3772 (a) (2).
It seems clear that Section 322(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 322 (c), upholds the defendant's position that this complaint must be dismissed. This section reads in part as follows: "If the Commissioner has mailed to the taxpayer a notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. U.S.
...were not presented in the Tax Court. Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519, 521, 1974 WL 2720 (1974); Bear Mill Mfg. Co. v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 988, 989 (S.D.N.Y.1950). See also First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 792 F.2d at 955 ("`It is not the decision which the Tax Court makes but ......
-
EMPIRE TRUST COMPANY v. United States
...v. United States, supra at 460; City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. United States, 143 F.Supp. 921 (S.D. N.Y.1956); Bear Mill Mfg. Co. v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 988 (S.D.N.Y.1950). As so often happens in applying statutes of limitations, the result here is a harsh one. Balanced against such a......
-
Dorl v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...States, 226 F.2d 619 (C.A. 3, 1955), or the issue sought to be litigated was not presented in the Tax Court, Bear Mill Mfg. Co. v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 988 (S.D.N.Y. 1950). It is significant that it is the taxpayer's action in filing a valid petition in the Tax Court, under circumstanc......
-
Ming v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Ming)
...States, 226 F.2d 619 (C.A. 3, 1955), or the issue sought to be litigated was not presented in the Tax Court, Bear Mill Mfg. Co. v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 988 (S.D.N.Y. 1950). It is significant that it is the taxpayer's action in filing a valid petition in the Tax Court, under circumstanc......