Edwards v. C. I. R., Nos. CA

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore ANDERSON, SKOPIL and CANBY; PER CURIAM
Citation680 F.2d 1268
Docket NumberNos. CA
Decision Date07 July 1982
Parties82-2 USTC P 9472 William H. and Avilda L. EDWARDS, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. 81-7353, CA 81-7354.

Page 1268

680 F.2d 1268
82-2 USTC P 9472
William H. and Avilda L. EDWARDS, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. CA 81-7353, CA 81-7354.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 3, 1982.
Decided July 7, 1982.

Page 1269

Avilda L. Edwards, pro se.

John F. Murray, Michael L. Paup, Carlton D. Powell, R. Russell Mather, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.

Before ANDERSON, SKOPIL and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William and Avilda Edwards appeal from the Tax Court's dismissal of their petition for a redetermination of deficiencies asserted against them by the Commissioner. We affirm in all respects.

FACTS

Appellants are the former owners of an auto repair business in Arizona. Neither of them reported any income from this business for the years 1971-1976. In each of these years, Mr. Edwards filed "protest type" returns in which he claimed the fifth amendment on most relevant line entries. Mrs. Edwards filed no returns from 1971-1975. In 1976, she filed a return in which she reported a small amount of wages from employment unrelated to the auto repair business. In April 1979, the Commissioner filed a Notice of Deficiency and assessed penalties. Appellants petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiencies, but refused to produce the books and records of the auto repair business. The Tax Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and sustained the deficiencies. Appellants raise four contentions on appeal: (1) the statute of limitations bars collection of the deficiencies; (2) the dismissal of their petition for failure to produce records violates their constitutional rights; (3) use of the Consumer Price Index to calculate increases in their income was arbitrary; and (4) Mrs. Edwards cannot be held liable for the deficiencies because she did not participate in the family business. Each of these contentions is without merit.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Normally, taxes must be assessed within three years after a return is filed. I.R.C. § 6501(a). Where no return is filed, however, the tax may be assessed at any time. Id. § 6501(c)(3). 1 Tax forms that do not contain information upon which tax liability

Page 1270

may be computed are not returns within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 835, 95 S.Ct. 62, 42 L.Ed.2d 61 (1974). Accord, United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617, 618 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 922, 100 S.Ct. 1861, 64 L.Ed.2d 278 (1980); United States v. Johnson, 577 F.2d 1304, 1311 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Silkman, 543 F.2d 1218, 1219 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 2185, 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1980); United States v. Jordan, 508 F.2d 750, 752 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 842, 96 S.Ct. 76, 46 L.Ed.2d 62 (1975); United States v. Porth, 426 F.2d 519, 523 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 400 U.S. 824, 91 S.Ct. 47, 27 L.Ed.2d 53 (1970). The "protest type" returns filed by Mr. Edwards are simply not valid returns and do not activate the statute of limitations.
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS

Appellants claim that dismissal of their petition for failure to produce records violates their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. To invoke the fifth amendment privilege, the taxpayer must be faced with substantial hazards of self-incrimination that are real and appreciable, and must have reasonable cause to apprehend such danger. United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65...

To continue reading

Request your trial
333 practice notes
  • Lefebvre v. C.I.R., No. 86-1966
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 9, 1987
    ...Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir.1984); Sparrow v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d 914, 915 (4th Cir.1984); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982), and contrary taxpayer assertions are frivolous. Madison v. United States, 758 F.2d 573, 574 (11th 4 Connor v. Commissi......
  • Scull v. United States, Civ. A. No. 83-132-NN
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • April 10, 1984
    ...548 (1973); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-52, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511-12, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); cf. Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th The plaintiffs claim that in order to avoid the assessment of the § 6702 penalty they must file returns which are self-incriminating, i......
  • United States v. Boyce, Case No. CV 13–00601 MMM (JEMx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • July 8, 2014
    ...were not paid, [38 F.Supp.3d 1152] Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir.1979); see also Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (holding that a factual foundation for the assessment is laid “once some substantive evidence is introduced de......
  • United States v. Boyce, Case No. CV 13–00601 MMM JEMx.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • July 8, 2014
    ...taxes were not paid, 38 F.Supp.3d 1152Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir.1979) ; see also Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (holding that a factual foundation for the assessment is laid “once some substantive evidence is introduce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
331 cases
  • Lefebvre v. C.I.R., No. 86-1966
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 9, 1987
    ...Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417-18 (5th Cir.1984); Sparrow v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d 914, 915 (4th Cir.1984); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982), and contrary taxpayer assertions are frivolous. Madison v. United States, 758 F.2d 573, 574 (11th 4 Connor v. Commissi......
  • Scull v. United States, Civ. A. No. 83-132-NN
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • April 10, 1984
    ...548 (1973); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-52, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511-12, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); cf. Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th The plaintiffs claim that in order to avoid the assessment of the § 6702 penalty they must file returns which are self-incriminating, i......
  • United States v. Boyce, Case No. CV 13–00601 MMM (JEMx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • July 8, 2014
    ...were not paid, [38 F.Supp.3d 1152] Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir.1979); see also Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (holding that a factual foundation for the assessment is laid “once some substantive evidence is introduced de......
  • United States v. Boyce, Case No. CV 13–00601 MMM JEMx.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • July 8, 2014
    ...taxes were not paid, 38 F.Supp.3d 1152Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir.1979) ; see also Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (holding that a factual foundation for the assessment is laid “once some substantive evidence is introduce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT