Strawberry Hill Press, Inc. v. Scanlon, 206

Decision Date22 December 1959
Docket NumberDocket 25864.,No. 206,206
Citation273 F.2d 306
PartiesSTRAWBERRY HILL PRESS, INC., Appellee, v. Thomas E. SCANLON, District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Brooklyn, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

David O. Walter, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Howard A. Heffron, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., and Irwin J. Harrison, Asst. U. S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York, Great Neck, N. Y., on the brief), for appellant.

Edmund C. Grainger, Jr., New York City (O'Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SWAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.


Thomas E. Scanlon, District Director of Internal Revenue for the District of Brooklyn, appeals from an order granting summary judgment to Strawberry Hill Press, plaintiff in an action to enjoin collection, prior to the issuance of a ninety day letter, of a delinquency penalty assessed under Sec. 6651 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. A. § 6651, and to vacate certain federal tax liens on plaintiff's property. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff's tax return for its 1957 fiscal year, due on July 15, 1958, was filed in the defendant's office about July 25, 1958. Shortly thereafter, the defendant sent a form letter to plaintiff, stating that unless reasonable cause were shown for the delay in filing, a penalty would be asserted. Upon plaintiff's failure to respond a penalty of 5% per month of the tax due was assessed under Sec. 6651(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541 and a demand for payment for that penalty in the amount of $3,003.79 plus interest was made. On November 19, 1958 the defendant filed a notice of lien with the Registers of New York and Kings County in favor of the United States upon the plaintiff's property. At no time was plaintiff sent the deficiency notice provided in Sec. 6212(a) of the 1954 Code.2 On December 5, 1958 plaintiff brought this action to enjoin collection of the penalty and to obtain cancellation of the liens, alleging that under Sec. 6659 of the 1954 Code3 the defendant was obliged to send it a notice of deficiency and grant it an opportunity to appeal to the Tax Court prior to collection of the penalty. Defendant disputed this interpretation of Sec. 6659, emphasizing primarily the practice under prior tax statutes4 and the inconvenience of administration which would be caused where a deficiency notice for the penalty for late filing required. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted the relief sought by plaintiff.5

In Granquist v. Hackleman, 9 Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 9, the Ninth Circuit was faced with a case virtually identical to this. We agree with so much of that opinion as holds that a penalty for late filing of a return is to be treated as a deficiency with respect to the requirement that a ninety day letter be sent the taxpayer and the reasons given for that conclusion.


1 Section 6651(a) provides in relevant part:

"In case of failure to file any return required under authority of subchapter A of chapter 61 * * * on the date prescribed therefor (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing), unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount required to be shown as tax on such return 5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Shaw v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 16, 1964
    ...6659(b) at 74 Stat. 132 (1960). The express purpose of the amendment was to nullify the holdings of this case, Strawberry Hill Press, Inc. v. Scanlon, 2 Cir., 273 F.2d 306 (involving an assessment under section 6651), and Enochs v. Muse, 5 Cir., 270 F.2d 528 (involving an assessment under s......
  • DiRezza v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of DiRezza)
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • January 11, 1982
    ...264 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1959), and Strawberry Hill Press, Inc. v. Scanlon, 172 F. Supp. 335 (E.D. N.Y. 1959), affd. per curiam 273 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1959), the courts held that under the 1954 Code all additions to tax for late filing were subject to the deficiency procedures. Cf. Enochs v. Mus......
  • Spencer Press, Inc. v. Alexander, No. 73-1399.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 5, 1974
    ...1960 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2025. 3 Cases such as Grandquist v. Hackleman, 264 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1959) and Strawberry Hill Press, Inc. v. Scanlon, 273 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1959), were expressly mentioned in the Senate committee report and apparently were the impetus for the statutory revis......
  • Johnston v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 24, 1970
    ...for the additions to taxes that were being imposed. Granquist v. Hackleman, 264 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1959); Strawberry Hill Press, Inc. v. Scanlon, 273 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1959); Enochs v. Muse, 270 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. Congress, seeking to alleviate from the Commissioner the burden of auditing and......
  • 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