Sprague Electric Company v. Tax Court

Citation340 F.2d 947
Decision Date19 January 1965
Docket NumberNo. 6395.,6395.
PartiesSPRAGUE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. The TAX COURT OF the UNITED STATES et al., Defendants, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

James M. Mulligan, Jr., Wilmington, Del., with whom Edmund Burke, Boston, Mass., Arthur G. Connolly, Arthur G. Connolly, Jr., Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., and Connolly, Bove & Lodge, Wilmington, Del., were on brief, for appellant.

Harry Marselli, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, and Crombie J. D. Garrett, Attys., Dept. of Justice, W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Murray H. Falk, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on brief, for appellees.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and SWEENEY and WYZANSKI, District Judges.

ALDRICH, Chief Judge.

Taxpayer, Sprague Electric Company, brings this action for mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 against the Tax Court of the United States and a judge thereof, hereinafter collectively respondent, alleging that in deciding a certain excess profits tax case, Sprague Electric Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 36 T.C. 1043, hereinafter taxpayer's case, against taxpayer, respondent committed, essentially, three errors of an arbitrary nature constituting an abuse of discretion. Viz., respondent decided an issue "not raised by the pleadings or during the hearing;" "interpreted Section 721(a) (1) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code in an arbitrary manner," and, in another connection, "arbitrarily ignored the plain language of Section 721 and the regulations." Respondent moved to dismiss on several broad grounds. In granting the motion the district court stated that it sustained two of the grounds without reaching the third. On this appeal we need reach only one aspect of one.

Section 732 of the 1939 Code provided in part,

"(c) Finality of determination. If in the determination of the tax liability under this subchapter the determination of any question is necessary solely by reason of * * section 721 * * * the determination of such question shall not be reviewed or redetermined by any court or agency except the Tax Court."

Following respondent's resolution of taxpayer's case taxpayer filed in this court a petition for review. That petition sought to raise in substance the same matters quoted above from the present complaint. Taking them, for the moment, out of order, we held that the third came solely under section 721, and hence was not reviewable whether the error was of law or of fact. We held as to the first that if deciding a matter not raised in the pleadings, or at the hearing, was an error of a broader nature so that review was not interdicted, it would serve no purpose to review it because, with respect to the issue so decided, the respondent had made an alternative determination against taxpayer, equally and fully dispositive, and that this determination was one clearly falling within section 721. We held that the second question,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • JC PENNEY COMPANY v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 70 Civ. 4980.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 3, 1970
    ...27 28 U.S.C. § 1582(a). 28 See Sprague Elec. Co. v. Tax Court of United States, 230 F.Supp. 779, 781-782 (D.Mass.1964), aff'd, 340 F.2d 947 (1st Cir. 1965); Olin Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 72 F.Supp. 225, 228 (D.Mass. 1947). 29 Cf. Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 670, 80 S.Ct. 1288, 4 L.E......
  • Davis v. Romney, Civ. A. No. 71-198.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • February 13, 1973
    ...to broaden venue of mandamus relief. Sprague Electric Co. v. Tax Court of United States, 230 F.Supp. 779 (D.C.Mass.1964) affirmed 340 F.2d 947 (1st Cir. 1965). In Work v. United States ex rel. Rives, 267 U.S. 175, 45 S.Ct. 252, 69 L.Ed. 561 (1925), Chief Justice Taft noted the scope of Mand......
  • Akins v. Saxbe, Civ. No. 2031 N. D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
    • June 20, 1974
    ...States Treasury Department, supra; Sprague Electric Co. v. Tax Court of United States, 230 F.Supp. 779 (D.Mass.1964), aff'd, 340 F.2d 947 (1st Cir.1965). Finally, the relief sought in plaintiffs' first two claims for relief is foreclosed by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), whic......
  • Carter v. Seamans
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 8, 1969
    ...1966); Application of James, 241 F.Supp. 858 (SD NY 1965); Sprague Electric Co. v. Tax Court, 230 F.Supp. 779 (D.Mass.1964) aff'd, 340 F.2d 947 (1 CA 1965); Rose v. McNamara, 225 F.Supp. 891 (ED Pa. 1963); Seebach v. Cullen, 224 F.Supp. 15 (ND Cal.1963); McEachern v. United States, 212 F.Su......
  • 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