Marx v. Goodrich
| Decision Date | 16 June 1955 |
| Citation | 286 A.D. 913,142 N.Y.S.2d 28 |
| Parties | Application of Emily MARX, Appellant, v. Allen J. GOODRICH, Frederick R. Blair, and Edward H. Best, Respondents, to review a determination made after a hearing in the Matter of the Income Taxes of petitioner for the years 1937 through 1943, inclusive. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Emil Marx, New York City, for appellant.
Jacob K. Javits, Atty. Gen. , for respondents.
Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and ZELLER, JJ.
Proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Tax Commission.
The petition is so loosely drawn and so discursively argumentative in form that we are unable to see clearly the facts upon which petitioner relies in this proceeding under Civil Practice Act, Article 78, reviewing the Tax Commission's determination that she is subject to a New York income tax. Petitioner alleges she was a resident of New Hampshire in the years 1937 to 1943 which are in issue here. The Commission determined she was a resident of New York in those years and assessed a tax. Two hearings were held at which petitioner testified. She complains that the hearings were unduly delayed; but the petitioner admits she filed no returns for the years in question and the statute of limitations does not run in those circumstances, Tax Law, § 373, subd. 1. The assessments were made in 1945 and petitioner was given due notice of them and could then act in accordance with her rights. Part of the delay from that time on may be attributable to her, but whether it was or not the determination is not invalidated by the delay shown in this record. The facts thus alleged, so far as we are able to read them as facts and separate them from the legal arguments which are woven within them, show on their face that the Commission acted in making and reviewing the assessments in accordance with the statute which gives it jurisdiction.
Petitioner seems to argue that the Commission is estopped by having decided in certain prior years that she was a nonresident from ruling for the years in question she was subject to the New York tax. Of course the duty of making annual tax assessments is to be viewed freshly for each year and may be decided differently than in previous years, either because the taxpayer's status has actually changed or because the tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. State Bd. of Equalization
...two. New York courts have held that the above-quoted portions of their statute constitute a statute of limitations. Marx v. Goodrich, 286 App.Div. 913, 142 N.Y.S.2d 28, 30; Brown v. New York State Tax Com'n, 199 Misc. 349, 99 N.Y.S.2d 73, The Vermont court in Union Twist Drill Co. v. Harvey......
-
Inter-County Title Guaranty & Mortg. Co. v. State Tax Commission
...agreed that the State Tax Commission could not be estopped from changing its interpretation of a statute citing Matter of Marx v. Goodrich, 286 App.Div. 913, 142 N.Y.S.2d 28. In addition the court held as a matter of law that the taxes imposed and reviewed were illegal and The charge made f......
-
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. State Tax Commission
...taxes against the items herein, the Commission cannot be estopped from changing an interpretation of statutes (Matter of Marx v. Goodrich, 286 App.Div. 913, 142 N.Y.S.2d 28). In our view the cases cited by the petitioner are not in point. To be of value, comparisons must be made between alm......
-
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. State Tax Commission
...with the majority below that the Tax Commission cannot be estopped from changing an interpretation of a statute (Matter of Marx v. Goodrich, 286 App.Div. 913, 142 N.Y.S.2d 28), we are of the opinion that the failure to tax the type of transactions here involved for 53 years should not be vi......