Expanding Envelope and Folder Corporation v. Shotz
| Decision Date | 14 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16597,16598.,16597 |
| Citation | 385 F.2d 402 |
| Parties | EXPANDING ENVELOPE AND FOLDER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Joseph M. SHOTZ, District Director of Internal Revenue, Newark, New Jersey, Edward J. Fitzgerald, District Director of Internal Revenue, Manhattan, New York, and United States of America, Appellees. Lawrence DWORKIN and Lillian Dworkin, Appellants, v. Joseph M. SHOTZ, District Director of Internal Revenue, Newark, New Jersey, and United States of America, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Issie L. Jenkins, Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D. C. (Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwacks, Lawrence B. Silver, Attys., Dept. of Justice, David Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Richard D. Catenacci, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellees.
Before McLAUGHLIN, GANEY and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
Both appeals raise the issue, which we assume is properly formulated, as to whether the notices of deficiency mailed by the Internal Revenue Service complied with the statute directing the mailing of such notice to the taxpayer's last known address (Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 6212).
The taxpayers sued in the district court to enjoin the defendants from attempting to collect assessments which were made following the sending of the notices. The district court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and the taxpayers appealed.
The taxpayers filed with the Internal Revenue Service powers of attorney directing that "all correspondence addressed to the taxpayers in proceedings involving" the years in question here should be sent to the designated attorneys-in-fact at the address specified in the powers. The powers also contained the addresses of the taxpayers. The Service thereafter mailed certified notices of deficiency to the taxpayers in care of their attorneys-in-fact at the attorneys' addresses given in the powers.
The taxpayers first contend that the mailing here did not constitute compliance with Section 6212 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. They say that the statute does not permit the use of a power of attorney of the type here involved to alter the "last known address" requirement. We think that when a taxpayer, through a duly executed and filed power, gives instructions such as those here given, he is in effect giving the Service a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ahrens
...IRS with respect to taxpayer's 1961 income taxes. Such notice has been consistently held sufficient. See Expanding Envelope & Folder Corp. v. Shotz, 385 F.2d 402, 404 (3d Cir. 1967); Delman v. Commissioner, supra, 384 F.2d at 932; Kisting v. Commissioner, 298 F.2d 264, 268--269 (8th Cir. 19......
-
Berger v. CIR
...which by virtue of the power of attorney was Mr. Whitman's office address. The taxpayers rely heavily on Expanding Envelope and Folder Corporation v. Shotz, 385 F.2d 402 (3 Cir. 1967), where we held that notices of deficiency were validly sent to the taxpayers in care of their attorneys-in-......
-
Mulvania v. Commissioner
...taxpayer's address to which subsequent notices are to be sent. Expanding Envelope and Folder Corp. v. Shotz 67-2 USTC ¶ 9734, 385 F. 2d 402, 404 (3d Cir. 1967); Williams, Admn. v. United States, 264 F. 2d 227, 228-229 (6th Cir. 1959); Birnie v. Commissioner Dec. 18,243, 16 T.C. 861 (1951). ......
-
Paul v. Commissioner
...Ahrens 76-1 USTC ¶ 9241, 530 F. 2d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1976); Expanding Envelope & Folder Corporation v. Shotz 67-2 USTC ¶ 9734, 385 F. 2d 402, 404 (3rd Cir. 1967); D'Andrea v. Commissioner 59-1 USTC ¶ 9260, 263 F. 2d 904, 907 (D. C. Cir. 1959); Reddock v. Commissioner Dec. 35,976, 72 T. C. ......