U.S. v. Wynshaw, 597
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before FRIENDLY, TIMBERS, and WINTER; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 697 F.2d 85 |
| Parties | 83-1 USTC P 9147 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David WYNSHAW, Frances Wynshaw, Defendants, Frances Wynshaw, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 82-6217. |
| Docket Number | D,No. 597,597 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1983 |
Page 85
v.
David WYNSHAW, Frances Wynshaw, Defendants,
Frances Wynshaw, Defendant-Appellant.
Second Circuit.
Decided Jan. 6, 1983.
Warren D. Wynshaw, Stern & Wynshaw, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas D. Warren, William J. Brennan, Asst. U.S. Attys., S.D.N.Y., New York City (John S. Martin, Jr., U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., David M. Jones, Thomas D. Warren, Asst. U.S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, TIMBERS, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Page 86
PER CURIAM:
In October 1973, a joint tax return for the year 1972, purportedly signed by David and Frances Wynshaw, was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. ("I.R.S."). That return showed a tax liability for the couple of $10,368.65; 1 however, no payment was enclosed. On January 7, 1974, the I.R.S. assessed the unpaid balance jointly against the taxpayers.
On October 14, 1976, the I.R.S. sent the Wynshaws a Notice of Deficiency for four tax years, including 1972. According to the Notice, the Wynshaws had underreported their 1972 taxable income by more than $117,000.00 and were jointly liable for another $76,727.00 in federal taxes for that year. The Service also notified the Wynshaws that they owed an additional $241,457.00 due to underreported income for the years 1969-71.
On January 3, 1977, the Wynshaws petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of deficiency. In the joint petition, Frances invoked the "Innocent Spouse" provision of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6013(e) (1976), 2 claiming that she should not be liable for the tax liability demanded by the I.R.S. because she had not been aware of nor benefitted from the omissions that created the liability. That petition stated, "The Petitioner, Frances Wynshaw, was innocent of such omissions, if any, and in signing the returns for the years in question had no reason to know of such omissions." (Emphasis added).
On August 21, 1979, the Wynshaws and the I.R.S. entered into a stipulated judgment. The Service accepted Frances Wynshaw's innocent spouse argument while David agreed to be responsible for specified deficiencies and penalties.
None of the arrears or penalties contained in the 1979 stipulation or the $9,619.64 due under the 1972 return have been paid. In order to reduce both assessments to judgment within the six year time limitation imposed by 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6502(a)(1), the I.R.S. filed suit on January 2, 1980 to secure payment from David of the agreed upon penalties and deficiencies and to hold David and Frances jointly and severally liable for the $9,619.64 still due on the 1972 return.
Frances, now divorced from David, responded by raising the affirmative defense that the signature on the 1972 tax return was not hers and had not been authorized. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assoc., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
...that where a party has a legal duty to speak, silence can constitute an affirmative "misrepresentation." See United States v. Wynshaw, 697 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1983); see also LHLC Corp. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 928, 932 (7th Cir. 1988); Katz v. Colonial Life Ins. Co., 951 F......
-
New York v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 15-cv-1136 (KBF)
...a representation or conceals material facts which it intends or expects will be acted upon by the other party. United States v. Wynshaw , 697 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir.1983) ; see also ATC Petroleum , 860 F.2d at 1111 (Equitable estoppel “is a means of precluding a litigant from asserting an othe......
-
Sellers v. United States
...See Finley v. United States, 612 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Wynshaw, 516 F.Supp. 785 (S.D.N.Y.1981) aff'd, 697 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1983). In speaking of the doctrine of res judicata in tax cases, the Finley court As in any other area, res judicata bars subsequent litigation of a......
-
New Capital Fire, Inc. v. Comm'r
...2000), rev'g T.C. Memo. 1998-99. It has applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to tax issues. See, e.g., United States v. Wynshaw, 697 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v. Matheson, 532 F.2d 809, 819 (2d Cir. 1976); Askin & Marine Co. v. Commissioner, 66 F.2d 776, 778 (2d Cir. 1......