Doll v. CIR
| Decision Date | 12 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 15669.,15669. |
| Citation | 358 F.2d 713 |
| Parties | Jacob A. DOLL and Esther Doll, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Arthur Markowitz, Robert H. Griffith, York, Pa., (Robert H. Griffith, York, Pa., on the brief), for petitioners.
Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Chief, Appellate Section, David O. Walter, Howard M. Koff, Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Mitchell Rogin, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question before us is whether the Tax Court erred in its determination that an assessment of a tax deficiency for the taxable year 1954 was not barred by the statute of limitations. 26 U.S.C.A. 6501(a). We are of the opinion that the case is governed by Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 50 S.Ct. 297, 74 L.Ed. 829 (1930). It was therein held that the statute of limitations did not bar the assessment of a tax deficiency where, as in the instant case, the return failed to meet the requirements of the statute. The return filed by the petitioners in the case before us was not signed by either of them.
The judgment of the Tax Court will be affirmed on its opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bachner v. C.I.R., 95-7121
...S.Ct. at 763-64; Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172, 180, 55 S.Ct. 127, 131, 79 L.Ed. 264 (1934). In Doll v. Commissioner, 358 F.2d 713 (3d Cir.1966) (per curiam), this court held that the absence of the taxpayer's signature on the taxpayer's return was enough to render the ret......
-
In re Settles
...Brafman v. United States, 384 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir.1967); Shea v. Comm'r, 780 F.2d 561, 568 (6th Cir.1986); Doll v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 358 F.2d 713, 714 (3d Cir.1966)). In Olpin the Tenth Circuit noted that “one exception” exists where one spouse has signed the return. 270 F.3d a......
-
Kalb v. U.S.
...statute of limitations running. Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 248-249, 50 S.Ct. 297, 74 L.Ed. 829 (1930); Doll v. Commissioner, 358 F.2d 713 (3d Cir. 1966). Herold seeks to distinguish his case on the ground that it was not his return and that he was not aware it was unsigned. ......
-
Hulett v. Comm'r
...See, e.g., Doll v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1965-191 (IRS did not inform the taxpayer that he forgot to sign the return), aff'd, 358 F.2d 713 (3d Cir. 1966). We therefore do not hold that the information-sharing agreement between the VIBIR and the IRS means that we have to pretend that all ......