Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, No. 320

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtTAFT
PartiesGOLDSMITH, Certified Public Accountant of State of New York, v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
Docket NumberNo. 320
Decision Date01 March 1926

270 U.S. 117
46 S.Ct. 215
70 L.Ed. 494
GOLDSMITH, Certified Public Accountant of State of New York,

v.

UNITED STATES BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.

No. 320.
Argued Nov. 30, 1925.
Decided March 1, 1926.

Page 118

Mr. H. Ely Goldsmity, of New York City, pro se.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

H. Ely Goldsmith, a citizen of New York and qualified to practice as a certified public accountant by certificate

Page 119

issued under the laws of that state, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, asking for a writ of mandamus against the United States Board of Tax Appeals, created by the Revenue Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253, 336, tit. 9, § 900 (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 6371 5/6 b)) to compel the board to enroll him as an attorney, with the right to practice before it, and to enjoin the board from interfering with his appearance before it in behalf of taxpayers whose interests are there being dealt with.

The petition avers that the board has published rules for admission of persons entitled to practice before it, by which attorneys at law admitted to courts of the United States and the states, and the District of Columbia, as well as certified public accountants duly qualified under the law of any state or the District are made eligible. The applicant is required to make a statement under oath, giving his name, residence, and the time and place of his admission to the bar, or of his qualification as a public accountant, and disclosing whether he has ever been disbarred, or his right to practice as a certified accountant has ever been revoked. The rules further provide that the board may in its discretion deny admission to any applicant, or suspend or disbar any person after admission.

The petitioner says that pursuant to these rules he made application showing that he was a public accountant of New York duly certified, and that his certificate was unrevoked; that he thereupon filed petitions for taxpayers before the board, but that he was then advised, September 5, 1924, by the board that the question of his admission to practice had been referred to a committee for investigation; that in due course he would be notified whether the committee desired him to appear before it, and of its action in the premises; and that on September 27 he received notice that his application had been received, considered, and denied. It does not appear that he made any further application to the board to be heard

Page 120

upon the question of his admission, but filed his petition for mandamus at once. In his petition, he denies the power of the board to make rules for admission of persons to practice before it.

Upon the filing of the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court of the District ordered a rule against the board to show cause. The members of the board answered the rule as if they were individual defendants, and set out at considerable length the discharge of the petitioner for improper conduct as examiner of municipal accounts in the office of state comptroller of New York (People ex rel. Goldschmidt v. Travis, 152 N. Y. S. 1058, 167 App. Div. 475; Id., 114 N. E. 1078, 219 N. Y. 589), and the rejection of the petitioner as an applicant for admission to practice in the Department of the Treasury because of improper advice to clients, as grounds upon which the committee and the board had denied his application to practice before it.

To this answer the petitioner replied consenting to the appearance of individual members of the board as defendants, denying some of the charges made, but averring that they were none of them competent evidence on the issue presented and were merely hearsay, and that the action in New York and in the Treasury Department was due to prejudice against him for doing his duty. To this reply the defendants demurred. Upon the issue thus presented, the Supreme Court dismissed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
187 practice notes
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...who may practice before it as attorneys, including the authority to discipline attorneys. See Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926); Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1953), and Koden v. U.S. Department of Justice, 564 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1977). Courts have affi......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...who may practice before it as attorneys, including the authority to discipline attorneys. See Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926); Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1953), and Koden v. U.S. Department of Justice, 564 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1977). Courts have affi......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 12, 2010
    • February 12, 2010
    ...v. United States Department of Justice, 546 F.2d 228, 232-233 (7th Cir. 1977) (citing Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926)). See also Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F. Supp. 701, 704 (D.D.C. 1957) (The Securities and Exchange Commission has implied authority under i......
  • Butler v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-100. Court No. 04-00584.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 30, 2006
    ...there at bar, which concerned "whether the holder of a permit has a property interest therein"); Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 123, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494 (1926) (lawyer/applicant who was refused admission to practice before Board of Tax Appeals had property inte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
184 cases
  • Butler v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-100. Court No. 04-00584.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 30, 2006
    ...there at bar, which concerned "whether the holder of a permit has a property interest therein"); Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 123, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494 (1926) (lawyer/applicant who was refused admission to practice before Board of Tax Appeals had property inte......
  • Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 26124-83.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • September 11, 1984
    ...Court, that is, possesses all necessary and usual powers essential to carrying out its functions. Cf. Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 122 (1926); Reo Motors v. Commissioner, 219 F.2d 610, 612 (6th Cir. 1955). Determining the admissibility of evidence is part of the normal p......
  • City of Santa Clara, Cal. v. Kleppe, No. C-75-1574.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 23, 1976
    ...it waived its right to such procedural due process as the reclamation laws might afford. 41 See also Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494 42 See notes 24 and 25 and accompanying text. See also House Report on H.R.7642, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Rep. No. 1......
  • Randone v. Appellate Department
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 26, 1971
    ...152--153, 61 S.Ct. 524, 85 L.Ed. 624 (establishment of industry-wide minimum wage); Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals (1926) 270 U.S. 117, 123, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494 (rejection of accountant for practice before Board of Tax Appeals); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works (1915) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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