Quirk's Estate v. C. I. R., 74-1224
| Decision Date | 30 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1224,74-1224 |
| Citation | 521 F.2d 723 |
| Parties | 75-2 USTC P 13,090, 75-2 USTC P 9647 ESTATE of Helen Moore QUIRK et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before CHAMBERS, TRASK and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.
This estate tax problem developed after the executor of the estate of Helen Moore Quirk received a statutory notice of deficiency in the estate's tax return in the sum of $135,210, and an additional penalty assessment of 50 percent of the underpayment for alleged fraud. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, section 6653(b), 26 U.S.C. §§ 6653(b). A statement was attached which showed the underpayment resulted from the Commissioner's recomputation of the taxable estate from $21,250 to $472,766. A timely petition by the estate for redetermination of the deficiency was filed in the Tax Court concluding with a prayer that the court determine (1) that there was no deficiency in estate tax and (2) that petitioner be given such other and further relief as might be appropriate.
An answer was not filed by respondent Commissioner within the time allowed, and his request for late filing was denied. Twice more the Commissioner applied for leave to file a late response, and each time the request was denied. Estate of Helen Moore Quirk v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 520 (1973); Order (unpublished) Estate of Helen Moore Quirk v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 95 (1973). In a later opinion in Rea v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 717, 719 (1973), the court referred to Quirk saying:
"Our narrow holding in (Quirk ) is distinguishable on the ground that there a direct order of this Court was violated by the respondent, and a good and sufficient cause for the delay was not shown."
On the basis of the executor's petition for redetermination which alleged generally that the original return was correct and that the Commissioner failed to file an answer, the taxpayer moved in the Tax Court for a determination of no deficiency, relying upon Rule 18(a) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice, which states:
The Tax Court denied the motion but held that by virtue of his failure to answer, the Commissioner could not place at issue his affirmative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haley v. CIR
...that judgment. This court does not sit in review of the Tax Court and will not act to overturn its rulings. See Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner, 521 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1975). Thus, the court accepts the Tax Court's determination that the September 19, 1990 order did not affect the running o......
-
Vermouth v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...to tax for fraud under section 6653(b). Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 95 (1973); Rule 142(b); see Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner, 521 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. per curiam taxpayer's petition for writ of mandamus brought in the district court. A more far-reaching result obt......
-
Utterback v. United States
...review the Tax Court's ruling or the Ninth Circuit's ruling deeming Utterback's appeal as frivolous. See Estate of Quirk v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 521 F.2d 723, 724 (9th Cir. 1975) ("The taxpayer may not confer jurisdiction on the district court to review a Tax Court action . . . .").C......