CIR v. Weinreich's Estate, 17930.
Decision Date | 03 April 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 17930.,17930. |
Citation | 316 F.2d 97 |
Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ESTATE of Oscar WEINREICH, Deceased, et al., Respondents. Geraldine Snyder WEINRICH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Harry Baum, Stephen B. Wolfberg and C. Moxley Featherstone, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for petitioner-respondent.
George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondent-petitioner.
Before CHAMBERS and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and CRARY, District Judge.
The question involved in this consolidated proceeding is whether the mitigation provisions of §§ 1311-1315 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 permit assessment and collection of certain deficiencies which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.
The relevant facts are established by stipulation of the parties (pages 33 through 39, Tr. of R.) and pertinent matters set forth as Findings in Snyder v. Westover (U.S.D.C.S.D.Calif., 1952) 107 F.Supp. 363, and Snyder v. Riddell (U.S.D.C.S.D.Calif., 1957) 52 A.F.T.R. 1776. It was further agreed that the stipulation was not intended to be in conflict but was subject to the decisions and opinions of this court in Snyder v. Westover (C.A. 9th, 1954) 217 F.2d 928; Snyder v. Riddell (C.A. 9th, 1958) 252 F.2d 23, and Snyder v. United States (C. A. 9th, 1958) 260 F.2d 826.
A summary of the facts relevant to these proceedings is as follows:
It is agreed by the parties that the assessment and collection of the deficiencies as against Geraldine and Oscar are barred by the statute of limitations unless they qualify as "adjustments" timely made within the mitigation provisions of §§ 1311-1315 of the 1954 Code, the pertinent portions of which are set forth in footnote to this opinion.1 These provisions constitute an exception to the one year statute of limitations involved and must be affirmatively pleaded and proved by the party relying thereon when the statute of limitations is relied on, as in this case by Geraldine and Oscar, as a bar to assessment of the deficiency. J. C. Bradford, 34 T.C. 1051 (1960) and cases cited therein. The respondent Commissioner relies on § 1312 (3) (A) as to the circumstances under which the adjustment is authorized in the case at bar asserting that the "determination", as defined in § 1313(a) (1), was the decision of this court filed on January 27, 1958, in the second Riddell suit on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Benenson v. United States
...78 F.Supp. 101, 111 Ct. Cl. 664, (1948) and Rigdon v. United States, 197 F.Supp. 150 (S.D.Cal.1961). See also Commissioner v. Weinreich's Estate, 316 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1963). I need not pass on the correctness of these decisions. I note that all of them involved either the same taxpayer or ......
-
Brummett v. U.S.
...for the mitigation provisions. Courts generally recognize determinations made by Article III courts. See, e.g., Comm'r v. Estate of Weinreich, 316 F.2d 97, 104 (9th Cir. 1963) (accepting determination by U.S. court of appeals); Chertkof v. Comm'r, 649 F.2d 264, 267 (4th Cir.1981) (accepting......
-
Boyle v. United States
...has been shown which would warrant readjustment pursuant to §§ 1311-1315 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. See C.I.R. v. Weinreich's Estate, 9 Cir.1963, 316 F.2d 97. The Government's motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the Estate of John F. Boyle, Jr. in this action, and so......
-
Fong v. Commissioner
...a substantive decision on the merits of a case. See, for example, Commissioner v. Estate of Weinreich [63-1 USTC ¶ 9420], 316 F.2d 97, 103-104 (9th Cir. 1963), affg. in part and revg. in part [Dec. 25,147] 37 T.C. 365 (1961), and Cotter v. Commissioner [Dec. 26,168], 40 T.C. 506, 507-509 (1......