Healy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 19829.
Decision Date | 08 November 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 19829.,19829. |
Citation | 351 F.2d 602 |
Parties | Edward J. HEALY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward J. Healy, in pro. per.
John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Robert I. Waxman, Fred Becker, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BARNES, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the Tax Court dismissing a "plea" for return of taxes.1
Petitioner filed his 1957, 1958 and 1959 tax returns after "conferences," and, so he states, "approval" of counter clerks employed by the Collector of Internal Revenue. As he states: "The Clerks assured petitioner that all submissions would be `OK'd' and that there would be no aftermath."
There was.
On January 19, 1962, the Commissioner sent a notice of deficiency for those years, by certified mail to the last known address of petitioner — Box 1305, Los Angeles, California. Petitioner does not dispute this was his correct address. In fact, he claims its rent as a business expense; states he has maintained it since 1942 to the present; and describes it as the "one unquestionable address" for him. Nor does petitioner deny he received the deficiency notice, nor even that the receipt was untimely. He apparently insists that because of the "counter clerk's" previous "approval" of his returns, and the fact he "had no access to competent help," the laws Congress has passed should not be applicable to him.2
The ninety-day period for filing his petition to review the alleged deficiency expired April 19, 1962.3 On July 17, 1964, taxpayer filed with the Tax Court of the United States a "PLEA FOR ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC AND FOR RETURN OF TAXES COLLECTED IN ERROR." The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss. After hearing petitioner's objections, the Tax Court dismissed petitioner's "Plea."
The only question properly before this court is whether the Tax Court correctly dismissed taxpayer's petition upon the ground it was untimely filed.
) (Respondent\'s Brief, p. 9.)
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hallmark Research Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
... 1 159 T.C. No. 6 HALLMARK RESEARCH COLLECTIVE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER" OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent No. 21284-21 United States Tax Court November 29, 2022 ... \xC2" ... evidence warrants") ... Healy ... v. Commissioner , 351 F.2d 602, 603 (9th Cir. 1965) ... ("The requirement of filing ... ...
-
Collective v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...such finding upon this jurisdictional question [i.e., the timeliness of the petition] as the evidence warrants"). Healy v. Commissioner, 351 F.2d 602, 603 (9th Cir. 1965) ("The requirement of filing the petition with the Tax Court within 90 days after the certified or registered notice of d......
-
Abeles v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...this Court has no jurisdiction over the deficiency and respondent may then assess and begin collection activities. Healy v. Commissioner, 351 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1965); sec. 6213(c). 7 The 90- day period for the filing of a petition for redetermination does not begin to run, however, unless ......
-
Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Comm'r
...the Board of Tax Appeals) for more than 80 years. See , e.g. , Scar v. Comm'r , 814 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987) ; Healy v. Comm'r , 351 F.2d 602, 603 (9th Cir. 1965) ; Di Prospero v. Comm'r , 176 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir. 1949) ; Edward Barron Estate Co. v. Comm'r , 93 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Ci......