Bloch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 15728
Decision Date | 05 May 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 15728,15731.,15728 |
Citation | 254 F.2d 277 |
Parties | Bernard BLOCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bernard Bloch, Detroit, Mich., appellant, in pro. per.
John N. Stull, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Elmer J. Kelsey, Lee A. Jackson, Charles B. E. Freeman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Deficiencies in income taxes were assessed against appellant by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1947, 1948, 1952 and 1953. At the time the assessments were made and notice thereof given, appellant was an inmate of Terminal Island Federal Penitentiary.
Appellant prepared petitions for a redetermination of the deficiencies and filed them with the Tax Court. The petitions were dismissed for the reason that they were not filed within the 90-day period required by sections 6213(a) and 7502(a) of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 6213(a), 7502(a); and that therefore the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain them.
In order to clearly distinguish the two petitions under consideration, we will refer to them by the numbers endorsed thereon in this Court. No. 15,728 refers to the assessment for the years 1952 and 1953, notice of which was mailed to appellant on November 6, 1956. It is established without contradiction that appellant prepared a petition to the Tax Court asking a redetermination of the assessment and on the first day of February 1957, the 87th day after the issuance of the notice of deficiency, placed it in the hands of a prison official known as a who had the duty to censor mail sent out by appellant. The petition was mailed in a franked envelope and no postmark appears thereon, but the date of mailing, the 91st day, is learned from a covering letter accompanying the petition. A letter from the Warden addressed to the Tax Court during the time the motion to dismiss was pending states, "* * * but it was not possible to get the cover letter dictated and typed until February 5, 1957 the 91st day." In addition the letter from the Warden to the Tax Court further explained,
In Case No. 15,731, notice of a deficiency for the years 1947 and 1948 was mailed by the Commissioner to Bloch on January 8, 1957. Bloch prepared a petition for redetermination and delivered it to his case worker with mailing fees on March 25, 1957, the 75th day. This petition was notarized by the case worker on April 2, 1957, the 84th day. There was a typed-in date on the jurat of March 25th, but a line was drawn through that date and April 2nd substituted. The postmark on the registered letter containing this petition was dated April 9, 1957, the 91st day; a letter enclosed with this petition in the record and signed by the Chief, Classification and Parole, at the prison stated that
In 1954 Congress added section 7502, which provides: 26 U.S.C.A. § 7502(a). Section 7502(c) further provides that "If any such * * * document is sent by United States registered mail, * * * the date of registration shall be deemed the postmark date." 26 U.S.C.A. § 7502 (c).
The taxpayer, confined as he was in a penal institution, had his every action circumscribed and controlled by strict prison rules. After preparing his petition for review, he was forced to place it in the hands of a prison case worker for transmission to the Tax Court. The taxpayer could not go to the mailing room and mail his petition. Prison rules required that he deliver it to his case worker. Bloch did so, but the case worker failed to timely carry out the request. It is interesting to note that each of the petitions, although filed at different times, were each processed through the prison mailing room on the 91st day after the date of the notice from the Internal Revenue Service.
It would appear that the case worker must have been ignorant of the 90 day requirement. Otherwise the task of getting the petitions into the mailing room would not have been difficult. The great weight of authority is to the effect that the 90-day requirement is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hallmark Research Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
... 1 159 T.C. No. 6 HALLMARK RESEARCH COLLECTIVE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER" OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent No. 21284-21 United States Tax Court November 29, 2022 ... \xC2" ... 375 ... (1956) ... Bloch ... v. Commissioner , 254 F.2d 277, 278 (9th Cir. 1958) ... ("The great weight of ... ...
-
Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
... 159 T.C. No. 6 HALLMARK RESEARCH COLLECTIVE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER" OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent No. 21284-21 United States Tax Court November 29, 2022 ... \xC2" ... 375 ... (1956) ... Bloch ... v. Commissioner , 254 F.2d 277, 278 (9th Cir. 1958) ... ("The great weight of ... ...
-
Sylvan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...for lack of jurisdiction. Angelo Vitale, 59 T.C. 246 (1972); Estate of Frank Everest Moffat, 46 T.C. 499 (1966); Bloch v. Commissioner, 254 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1958); Rich v. Commissioner, 250 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1957). Ordinarily ‘A paper is filed when it is delivered to the proper official ......
-
Loonan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Wood)
...conclusion. Miller v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1986); Deutsch v. Commissioner, 599 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1979); Bloch v. Commissioner, 254 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1958). The majority distinguishes both Miller and Deutsch because in those two cases no postmark was proven and the evidence s......