JEFFERSON LOAN COMPANY v. Arundell, 15008

Decision Date10 December 1959
Docket Number15011.,No. 15008,15008
Citation273 F.2d 105
PartiesJEFFERSON LOAN COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant v. Charles Rogers ARUNDELL et al., as Judges of The Tax Court of the United States, in their official capacities, et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Forrest M. Hemker, St. Louis, Mo., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Missouri, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Monroe Oppenheimer, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. James H. Heller, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Miss Louise T. Foster, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Messrs. Howard A. Heffron, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. at the time the brief was filed, Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lee A. Jackson and A. F. Prescott, Jr., Attorneys, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. Asst. Atty. Gen. Charles K. Rice also entered an appearance for appellees in No. 15008.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In 1951 the Tax Court determined the tax liability of appellant, a Missouri corporation, for 1947 and 1948 on the basis of a stipulation between the corporation and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Payment was made accordingly. It was afterwards discovered that appellant's president had fraudulently concealed its financial condition from its stockholders and creditors, and that appellant had no taxable income for 1947 and 1948.

In 1955, after the fraud was discovered, appellant moved in the Tax Court to withdraw the stipulation and revise the court's decision. The Tax Court denied the motion on the ground of laches. In 1956, long after the time allowed for filing a petition for review had expired and the decision of the Tax Court had therefore become "final" under 26 U.S.C. (1952 ed.) §§ 1140(a), 1142, appellant asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review. That court dismissed appellant's petition as untimely. Jefferson Loan Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 249 F.2d 364.

Appellant then filed, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the present suit to set aside the stipulation and the Tax Court decision based upon it. Appellant contends the District Court had jurisdiction either under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(a), or on general equitable principles. The District Court rightly dismissed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Toscano v. CIR
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 28, 1971
    ...be had by an independent lawsuit, Schaffner v. Bingler, 3 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 76 (alternative holding); Jefferson Loan Co. v. Arundell, 1959, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 273 F.2d 105. There are but three cases to the contrary: Kenner v. C.I.R., 7 Cir., 1968, 387 F.2d 689, involving claimed fraud......
  • United States v. Leary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 22, 1963
    ...for review to the Circuit Court of Appeals. § 1141(a) (now Internal Revenue Code 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 7482); Jefferson Loan Co. v. Arundell, 106 U.S. App.D.C. 370, 273 F.2d 105 (1959); United States v. Lusk, 63 U.S.T.C. Par. 9359 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1963); See Factor v. C.I.R., 281 F.2d 100, 109 (9 C......
  • Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. v. Davis
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1965
    ...Court having no jurisdiction in such matters. Section 7482(a) of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a) (1958), Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Arundell, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 273 F.2d 105. 1 During oral argument in the district court, counsel for plaintiffs stated: "If the Government, in any instance, ......

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