Bendheim v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 231
| Decision Date | 09 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | Docket 22932.,No. 231,231 |
| Citation | 214 F.2d 26 |
| Parties | BENDHEIM v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Harry Silverson, New York City, for petitioner; Silverson & Allison and Frederick Gelberg, New York City, of counsel.
H. Brian Holland, Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson and Karl Schmeidler, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before CLARK, FRANK, and MEDINA, Circuit Judges.
The taxpayer's petition for review presents a narrow procedural question affecting the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.
Having filed an income tax return indicating no tax liability whatever for 1943, the taxpayer was notified on March 17, 1947, by the internal revenue agent in charge for the Upper New York Division, that a deficiency in the amount of $17,582.87 was being proposed. Within the thirty-day period following the receipt of the letter proposing this deficiency, the taxpayer filed a protest, and certain conferences and the submission of supplementary material ensued. On May 25, 1950, the taxpayer transmitted to the Collector of Internal Revenue for the Third District of New York the sum of $24,000, with the following letter:
This sum was placed by the Collector in his Suspense Account and the payment of $17,500 of income tax for 1943 was overlooked when, upon conclusion of the administrative processing of the matter, the taxpayer having filed no waiver as provided in Section 272(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 272(d), the Commissioner sent the taxpayer a letter on February 15, 1951, in the regular form of deficiency 90-day notice in the amount of $17,432.29. The difference between the deficiency originally proposed and that stated in the letter of February 15, 1951, is accounted for by the fact that the taxpayer had been given certain credits based upon information in the various papers submitted.
The taxpayer contends that there was a "deficiency," within the meaning of Section 271 of the Internal Revenue Code, and that, even if no "deficiency" in fact existed, the letter from the Commissioner constituted a determination that there was a deficiency sufficient to give the Tax Court jurisdiction, as provided in Section 272.
Section 271 defines a "deficiency" for the purposes of the Tax Court's jurisdiction as the amount by which the tax imposed by the statute exceeds the sum of the amount shown on the return, plus amounts assessed or collected without assessment, over the amount of rebates as defined in subsection (b) (2). The taxpayer claims that "collected without assessment" are words of art which refer only to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penn Mut. Indem. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 892, 894 (C.A. 4), affirming an order of dismissal of this Court, certiorari denied 345 U.S.924; Bendheim v. Commissioner, 214 F.2d 26 (C.A. 2). Also, it has been held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred either by consent of the parties or by estoppel, where juri......
-
Estate of Maceo v. Commissioner, Docket No. 55506
...199 F. 2d 892 (C. A. 4, 1952); Stanley A. Anderson Dec. 16,692, 11 T. C. 841 (1948); Bendheim v. Commissioner 54-2 USTC ¶ 9446 214 F. 2d 26 (C. A. 2, 1954) and Raoul Walsh Dec. 20,239, 21 T. C. 1063 (1954). We have carefully considered these authorities and find them distinguishable from th......
-
Flora v. United States
...2 See also Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning, 3 Cir., 123 F.2d 776; Coates v. United States, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 609. But cf. Bendheim v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 214 F.2d 26, 28; Elbert v. Johnson, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 421, 3 42 Stat. 311. 4 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 7422(a), 26 U.S.C.A. § 7422(a): 'No suit or......
-
Naftel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...confer jurisdiction on the Court occurs when a notice of deficiency is erroneously issued after payment of the tax. Bendheim v. Commissioner, 214 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948). 14 We have jurisdiction to decide not only whether the Commissione......
-
Practical advice on current issues.
...jurisdiction. If a taxpayer pays a deficiency in full before a notice of deficiency is issued, the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction (Bendheim, 214 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1954)). However, if a taxpayer makes a payment after the notice of deficiency is mailed, the Tax Court retains jurisdiction (Sec. 6......