Detroit Automotive P. Corp. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 11749.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11749.,11749. |
| Citation | 203 F.2d 785 |
| Parties | DETROIT AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
George L. Cassidy, Detroit, Mich. (William C. Loud, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for petitioner.
Frederic G. Rita, Washington, D. C. (Charles S. Lyon, Ellis N. Slack, A. F. Prescott, William L. Norton, Jr., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
The question for decision on this tax review is whether, under section 732(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., the taxpayer seasonably filed a petition with the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of its tax liability. The tax court held that petitioner had not done so.
The record shows that, in conformity with the aforementioned section, the petitioning taxpayer had until July 3, 1951, within which to file its petition. The record shows further that, on June 26, 1951, the taxpayer mailed its petition at Detroit, Michigan, to the Tax Court of the United States at Washington, D. C. The mailing list of the tax court, according to its finding of fact, indicates that the petition was filed with the tax court nine days later — that is, on July 5, 1951.
The court found that, although the official files of the tax court ordinarily contain the letter of transmittal of a petitioner and although the original envelope in which the petition is mailed is customarily clipped to the original petition, the official file in the instant case does not contain the transmittal letter or the envelope in which the petition was mailed by the taxpayer.
It seems unreasonable to deduce on the record in this case that a letter, correctly addressed and mailed in Detroit, was not received in Washington within a period of nine days. The tax court expressed its reluctance so to hold, but nevertheless did hold against the taxpayer on this issue. The court pointed out that the American Bar Association has proposed an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code to provide that, if a petition to the tax court is sent by registered mail, it should be deemed filed when mailed; and the comment was made by the court that this would relieve the taxpayer of the uncertainty of prompt mail delivery and would also relieve the tax court of "the unpleasant necessity of making such a distasteful ruling as this." Obviously the tax court regarded its decision as harshly technical.
We think it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charlson Realty Company v. United States
...93 F.2d 740, 742 (10th Cir. 1937) and cases there cited; Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 203 F.2d 785 (6th Cir. 1953); Schultz v. United States, supra; Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Borden Co. v. Unite......
-
Thomas v. U.S.
...when competent, credible evidence establishes the documents were mailed as alleged. Thomas cites Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 203 F.2d 785 (6th Cir.1953), and Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 902 (6th Cir.1952), which held that a rebuttable presumption exist......
-
Sylvan v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...198 F.2d 189 (8th Cir. 1952); Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1952); Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 203 F.2d 785 (6th Cir. 1953). 1 Recognizing the inequities and the uncertainty of the measures being taken by the courts to adjust them, Congress......
-
Baldwin v. U.S.
...rule, some courts responded by applying the common-law mailbox rule. See, e.g. , Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 203 F.2d 785, 785–86 (6th Cir. 1953) (per curiam); Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 198 F.2d 189, 191 (8......