Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 March 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7602.,7602. |
| Citation | 76 F.2d 626 |
| Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
H. Reid De Jarnett, of Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., John MacC. Hudson, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen.; John W. Holland, U. S. Atty., and Raymond F. Brown, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., both of Jacksonville, Fla., and Rene A. Viosca, U. S. Atty., of New Orleans, La.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
The United States in a common-law action sued Maryland Casualty Company as surety on a bond for $4,000 conditioned for the payment of income taxes due by Robert C. Lindsay. A plea of res judicata was stricken and judgment entered for a principal sum of $5,689.51, being the taxes with interest at 1 per cent. per month since they were first demanded of the taxpayer in September, 1926, with interest from date of judgment at 8 per cent. The appeal assigns error in striking the plea and in entering judgment for more than the penalty of the bond. The facts set up by the declaration and not denied by the plea are that Lindsay owed $2,707.85 as income taxes for the year 1925, and $300.44 as additional taxes for the year 1920, payment of which was demanded by the Commissioner in September, 1926; that in consideration of delay to enforce these taxes until May 26, 1928, or to place a lien on Lindsay's property until abatement of the tax should be decided, Lindsay on May 26, 1927, gave the bond sued on with Maryland Casualty Company as surety; that a claim for abatement of the 1925 tax was filed and the tax reduced by $85.65 on May 23, 1928; that on June 1, 1928, Lindsay was notified of this result but did not pay, and on January 30, 1929, Maryland Casualty Company was notified of Lindsay's default and payment demanded from it; and that on May 15, 1928, Lindsay had been adjudicated a bankrupt. The plea set up that in the bankruptcy case the collector of internal revenue filed a claim for these taxes, and on objection by the trustee the referee on January 28, 1929, disallowed the 1925 taxes and allowed only those for 1920. No review being had, the referee's ruling is pleaded as conclusively showing that Lindsay did not owe the 1925 taxes.
Assuming, without deciding, that the referee's decision would bind the United States otherwise than in the distribution of the bankrupt's estate, it was no answer to a suit on this bond. The bond recites that there are due from Lindsay "certain additional income or profits taxes resulting from a deficiency in tax, and to exact payment of the deficiency in tax at this time will result in undue hardship," and it refers to a statutory authority in such cases to extend the time of payment on giving bond, and states that the Internal Revenue Department will "refrain from placing a lien on Lindsay's property until the matter in abatement shall be decided." The bond is to pay $4,000 on this condition, "If the principal shall on or before the 26th day of May, 1928, pay such deficiency in tax found to be due by the Commissioner plus penalty and interest, in accordance with the terms of the extension as herein stated, and shall otherwise well and truly perform and observe all the provisions of law and the regulations" the obligation is to be void. The bond appears to be on a form appropriate to the delay of deficiency assessments under section 274 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1924, and section 274 (k) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 1054 and note). But a blank in the bond as to the statute referred to as authority stands unfilled, and it is argued that the tax for 1925 was not a technical deficiency assessment such as is referred to in the cited statutes. Possibly the recital in the bond that the taxes due are deficiencies is an estoppel. But if the bond be not one under the statute, it is good as a common-law obligation against its signers, who had the full benefit of it and who need no statute to enable them to contract. We have only to construe it. Lindsay stood faced by assessments securable by recording a lien and enforceable at once by distress, he not having sought relief through the Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company
...236 U.S. 512, 528, 35 S.Ct. 298, 302, 59 L.Ed. 696; Young v. Godbe, 82 U.S. 562, 15 Wall. 562, 565, 21 L.Ed. 250; Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 626; United States v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 77; United States v. Hamilton, 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 878; Massachusetts Bonding a......
-
Royal Indemnity Co v. United States
...Fidelity Co., 236 U.S. 512, 528, 35 S.Ct. 298, 302, 59 L.Ed. 696; Young v. Godbe, 15 Wall. 562, 565, 21 L.Ed. 250; Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 626; United States v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 77; United States v. Hamilton, 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 878, 117 A.L.R. 446; Massac......
-
U.S. v. Reul
...tax deficiency case, the Fifth Circuit also followed the unmistakable directive from the Supreme Court. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 76 F.2d 626 (5th Cir.1935). What is more, the Second Circuit in 1903 cited the "settled rule in the federal [I]n general, interest, as against ......
-
United States v. Royal Indemnity Co.
...Ed. 696. At least three circuits have decided in favor of the allowance of interest under similar circumstances. Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 626; United States v. Hamilton, 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 878, 117 A.L.R. 446; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, 9 ......