Malat v. CIR, 17289-17292.

Decision Date17 July 1962
Docket NumberNo. 17289-17292.,17289-17292.
PartiesWilliam MALAT and Ethel Malat, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Ben LESSER and Lily Lesser, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Louis RUDMAN and Shirley Rudman, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Louis LOMAS and Claire Lomas, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott and Morton K. Rothschild, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, District Judge.

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

We have before us four separate petitions to review four separate decisions of the Tax Court of the United States. The four cases were consolidated for hearing and briefing before the Tax Court. The opinion of the Tax Court is reported at 34 T.C. 365.

Since the questions of law presented for decision on the several petitions are common to the four cases, we will dispose of the four cases in a single opinion.

Three of the petitions involve income taxes and additions to tax for the calendar years 1950 and 1951. The other petition involves income taxes and additions to tax for the fiscal years ended November 30, 1950, and November 30, 1951.

In all four cases the respective taxpayers reported as long-term capital gains on their individual income tax returns for the two taxable years stated, net gains from the sales of certain real estate properties acquired by them from the following corporations of which they were shareholders: Pioneer Plaza, Inc., Pioneer Plaza No. 2, Inc., and Teri-Plaza, Inc. The Commissioner issued deficiency notices to petitioners on their individual income taxes for those two years disallowing the treatment of this income as long-term capital gains.

The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax as follows:

                                                                       Additions to tax under
                                                                       section 294(d)(2) IRC
                       Petitioner          Year         Deficiency                    of 1939       
                  William Malat            1950         $14,542.59           $1,003.26
                    and Ethel Malat        1951          12,746.75            1,092.46
                  Ben Lesser and       Taxable year      12,923.84            1,010.01
                    Lily Lesser       ended Nov. 30
                                           1950
                                       Taxable year      11,253.70              none
                                      ended Nov. 30
                                           1951
                  Louis Rudman and         1950          15,225.83            1,424.60
                    Shirley Rudman         1951          12,950.63            1,142.63
                  Louis Lomas and          1950          18,083.77            1,362.28
                    Claire Lomas           1951           9,958.91            1,186.22
                

The Commissioner in the several notices of deficiency, after setting forth the amounts of deficiency indicated above, attached several schedules showing the adjustments made to net income and an explanation of the adjustments. As an illustration, the relevant portion of Schedules 1 and 2 attached to one of the deficiency notices is as follows:

"Commissioner of Internal Revenue"

"Taxable Year Ended December 31, 1950"

"Schedule 1" "Adjustments to Net Income" "Net income as disclosed by the return $33,339.47 "Additional income "(a) Ordinary income $51,866.69

* * * * * *
"Schedule 2"
"Explanation of Adjustments"
"(a) Pioneer Plaza, Inc. 32,962.83 (1)
* * * * * *
"(1) The net profit of $30,045.48 returned by you as a long-term capital gain from the sale of 31 lots, Pioneer Plaza, has been increased to a net profit of $32,962.83 from the sale of 31 homes. The homes are part of a single subdivision tract financed and constructed by Pioneer Plaza, Inc. The corrected net profit was received and retained by you under a claim of right and without restrictions as to its disposition.
"It is held the sales were those of Pioneer Plaza, Inc., and the net profits are taxable first to it and then, as corporate distribution to you as a stockholder of Pioneer Plaza, Inc., as ordinary income under section 22(a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C.A. § 22 (a).
"In the alternative it is held that the homes were not capital assets but were held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of your trade or business. The net profit from the sale is taxable as ordinary income under the provisions of section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The capital gain of $15,022.74 (50 percent of $30,045.48) has been eliminated from your income."

The other deficiency notices contain similar adjustments which followed the same pattern differing only in amount.

After all four cases were at issue in the Tax Court, issues not involved in this appeal were settled by stipulations and concessions which resulted in a reduction of deficiencies asserted for each of the two years below the amounts stated in the deficiency notices.

Prior to the time for hearing of the consolidated cases, the petitioners in each case filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. As an illustration, the relevant portion of the motion in one of the cases is as follows:

"MOTION"
"Petitioners move the court for judgment on the pleadings, with the resulting deficiency to be determined under Rule 50 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) § 7453, and for that purpose show as follows:
"* * *,
the Commissioner in his deficiency notice, * * *, has held by way of an `alternative\' finding that the real estate parcels involved `were not capital assets but were held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of your petitioners\' trade or business.\'
"Petitioners now ask the court to adopt the said holding of the Commissioner as its finding of fact under these issues.
"Petitioners submit for this purpose that they are under no obligation to support by evidence a position taken by the Commissioner in his deficiency notice. * * *."

Similar motions were filed by petitioners in the other cases.

Consistent with the position taken in the motions, petitioners offered no evidence nor did the Commissioner. Hence, when the cases were submitted to the Tax Court for decisions, there remained only the issues raised by the motions for judgments on the pleadings.

The Tax Court denied the motions for judgments on the pleadings. In its opinion the Tax Court stated:

"* * * The motions do not state the dollar amount of the judgments they request be entered against them but obviously they are requesting judgment for the full amount of the tax deficiency since they ask it be entered on a finding of fact that will produce that sum.
"* * * These motions seek judgments of this Court against the moving parties in the exact amount of tax determined on the adjustments. That would be the judgments this Court would enter if no motions were filed and no evidence introduced.
"The only apparent purpose of the motions would be to have this Court decide in the case of the stockholder, and without any evidence, that his corporation had no income from the sale of residences. Obviously this would not be proper. The cases of the corporations may be pending before this Court. Their liability for tax cannot be adjudicated by such a pleading maneuver as petitioners make.
"Since petitioners, who have the burden of proof, submitted their cases on such motions without any evidence, the motions are utterly meaningless. Since they move for judgment against themselves in the exact amount determined, and introduce no evidence, and state they do not care to introduce evidence but will rest on their motions, they have no standing to ask this Court to base its judgments on conceded facts, or any pleading admissions. Respondent\'s determination of a deficiency is presumptively correct. When there is failure on the part of a taxpayer to introduce any evidence that it is not, the only judgment that will be entered against him for the determined deficiency will be based upon that presumption of correctness that attaches to respondent\'s determination and the taxpayer\'s failure to carry his burden of proof to show it was not.
"Petitioners\' motions for judgments to be based upon this Court adopting any part of respondent\'s Explanation of Adjustments as its findings of fact, are denied. Respondent will have judgments against petitioners upon his determinations of tax due based upon his holding of the amounts to be added to income under the adjustments as to house sales which appear in all dockets. * * * It is to be understood that such judgments will be based upon the presumption of correctness of respondent\'s determinations and petitioners\' failure to sustain their burden of proving they were not. Both parties state there are stipulations and concessions with respect to other adjustments and that a Rule 50 computation will be necessary in all the dockets.
"Decisions will be entered under Rule 50."

Separate decisions were rendered in the four cases. As an illustration, the decision in one of the cases is as follows:

"Ordered and Decided: That there are deficiencies in income tax for the taxable years 1950 and 1951 in the respective amounts of $10,289.33 and $6,418.50, and there are additions to tax under Section 294 (d), I.R.C. of 1939, for the taxable years 1950 and 1951 in the respective amounts of $748.07 and $899.28."

The decisions in the other cases were in the same form differing only in the amounts of deficiencies and additions to tax.

We will first consider petitioners' contention that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to redetermine the determinations made by the Commissioner in these four cases. Petitioners argue that, by reason of the conflicting holdings by the Commissioner in the deficiency...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Church of Scientology of California v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • September 24, 1984
    ...States for the Use and Benefit of C.H. Benton, Inc. v. Roelof Construction Co., 418 F.2d 1328, 1332 (9th Cir. 1969); Malat v. Commissioner, 302 F.2d 700, 706 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 371 U.S. 934 (1962), affg. 34 T.C. 365 (1960). This is especially true where the party failing to produce th......
  • Estate of Goodall v. CIR
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 5, 1968
    ...Inc. v. Riddell, 273 F.2d 649, 658-660 (9 Cir. 1959), cert. denied 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 52, 5 L.Ed.2d 60; Malat v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 F.2d 700, 704 (9 Cir. 1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 934, 83 S.Ct. 308, 9 L.Ed.2d 271. It is true that, as the taxpayers point out, Revell......
  • Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Comm'r
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 18, 2020
    ...as to "amount" is entitled to preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings between the taxpayer and the IRS, see Malat v. Comm'r , 302 F.2d 700, 706 (9th Cir. 1962). However, there is no such "decision" as to "amount," and no preclusive effect, if the Tax Court's "dismissal is for lack of ju......
  • United States v. Kessler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 5, 1973
    ...7 See, e. g., Glimco v. C. I. R., 397 F.2d 537 (C.A.7 1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 452, 21 L.Ed.2d 442 (1968); Malat v. C. I. R., 302 F.2d 700 (C.A.9 1962), cert. den. 371 U.S. 934, 83 S.Ct. 308, 9 L.Ed.2d 271 (1962); Hoffman v. C. I. R., 298 F.2d 784 (C.A.3 1962); see also Evis......
  • 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