U.S. v. Hans
| Decision Date | 14 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3042,90-3042 |
| Citation | 921 F.2d 81 |
| Parties | -1036, 90-2 USTC P 50,600 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph H. HANS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Albert Ritcher, Office of the U.S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, Gary R. Allen, Acting Chief, Richard Farber, Kimberly S. Stanley, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Appellate Section Tax Div., Henry J. Riordan, Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph H. Hans, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Before JONES and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and WISEMAN, District Judge. *
In this action to reduce to judgment federal income tax assessments made against taxpayer Joseph H. Hans, the district court denied in part the government's motion for summary judgment against taxpayer Hans, on the ground that the statute of limitations had run with respect to one of the government's claims.
The issue on appeal is whether a decision of the tax court becomes "final" within the meaning of I.R.C. Sec. 6503(a) on 1) the date the decision is entered, or 2) the last date that the taxpayer could notice a timely appeal from the decision. We hold that a tax court decision becomes final for purposes of I.R.C. Sec. 6503(a) on the last date for timely appeal, and therefore must reverse.
Defendant Joseph H. Hans filed his income tax return for the tax year 1975 on or before April 15, 1976. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sent Hans a notice of tax deficiency for the 1975 tax year on March 29, 1979. Hans decided to contest the deficiency and filed a petition with the United States Tax Court on June 25, 1979. The tax court found a deficiency of $36,023 and entered its judgment against Hans on November 20, 1984. Hans did not appeal. Pursuant to the tax court's decision, the government on March 22, 1985, notified Hans of an assessment that it had made for the unpaid taxes and demanded payment. Hans still refused to pay.
The government then brought this action in district court to reduce to judgment the income tax assessment for 1975 and other years. The government's motion for summary judgment was granted with respect to assessments for some years but not with respect to the assessment for 1975. The court held that the statute of limitations barred the 1975 assessment.
After denying the government's motion for reconsideration, the court entered final judgment, from which the government appeals.
The government does not dispute the district court's conclusion that the limitations period for filing a tax assessment runs for a period of three years from the date the tax return was filed. See I.R.C. Sec. 6501(a). Neither does the government dispute the district court's conclusion that the statute of limitations was tolled from the time the IRS issued the deficiency notice to Hans until 60 days after the decision of the tax court became final. See I.R.C. Sec. 6503(a). Thus, since there were 17 days remaining in the original three-year limitations period when the IRS issued the deficiency notice, the IRS had 77 days after the date on which the tax court's judgment became final in which to make an assessment against Hans.
The parties disagree as to when the tax court decision became final within the meaning of I.R.C. Sec. 6503(a). The government contends that the decision became final 90 days after the entry of the decision, when the time expired for appeal of the tax court decision by the taxpayer. Thus, the government calculates that the IRS had until May 6, 1985, to make its assessment. Hans contends, and the district court held, that the tax court's decision became final when the tax court entered its decision on November 20, 1984. Accordingly, the district court calculated that the government had until February 5, 1985, to make its assessment and held the government's March 22, 1985, assessment to be time-barred.
Determining when the tax court's decision became final for I.R.C. Sec. 6503(a) purposes presents a question of statutory interpretation, a matter of law. Therefore our standard of review is de novo. See In re Edward M. Johnson & Associates, Inc., 845 F.2d 1395, 1398 (6th Cir.1988); Dayton Power & Light Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Princo Corp.
...does not "become final" until the appeal period has run. See Ripley v. Comm'r, 103 F.3d 332, 335 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Hans, 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir.1990); Sherry Frontenac, Inc. v. United States, 868 F.2d 420, 424 (11th Cir. 1989); Cole v. United States, 863 F.2d 34, 36 (9th Ci......
-
U.S. v. Thomas
...a question of statutory interpretation, a matter of law, and is reviewed by this court under a de novo standard. United States v. Hans, 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir.1990). Defendants' challenge to their convictions under counts 1-7, rests on two basic premises: 1) Section 1465 does not apply to......
-
Lang v. U.S.
...an issue that we review de novo. See United States v. Morris, 203 F.3d 423, 424 (6th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Hans, 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir.1990)). Section 2255 provides that "[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropri......
-
U.S. v. Markwood
...of statutory interpretation, it is clear that the starting point for our inquiry is the language used by Congress. United States v. Hans, 921 F.2d 81, 82 (6th Cir.1990). See also Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 2594, 120 L.Ed.2d 379 (1992) (quo......