United States v. Paisley
| Decision Date | 04 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 44740.,44740. |
| Citation | 26 F. Supp. 237 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PAISLEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Michael L. Igoe, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Chicago, Ill.
Wm. Sherman Carson, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
This cause has been submitted to the Court on the pleadings and a stipulation of facts.
It appears that various deficiencies in income taxes were determined by the Commissioner and assessed against William M. LeMoyne, now deceased, for the years 1922, 1923 and 1925; and that the decedent filed a petition with the United States Board of Tax Appeals, asking for a redetermination of said deficiencies.
The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the deficiencies of the Commissioner, and upon appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was affirmed. On September 7th, 1929, the deficiencies were assessed against the decedent in the total sum of $7,445.43.
William LeMoyne died May 16, 1931, leaving a last Will and Testament, which was filed and proved in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois, and letters testamentary issued to Gertrude LeMoyne. November 10th 1935, the said Gertrude LeMoyne died, and on December 13th, 1937, Oliver Paisley was appointed Administrator de bonis non, with the Will annexed of the estate of said William M. LeMoyne, deceased, and in such capacity has been substituted as defendant herein.
June 27th, 1931, a claim was filed in the Estate of William M. LeMoyne, deceased, on behalf of the Collector of Internal Revenue for the asserted deficiencies, with interest, and on September 28th, 1931, the claim was allowed in the sum of $10,908.93, being $7,445.43 for the deficiencies assessed, and $3,463.50 for interest.
September 6th, 1935, plaintiff instituted this proceeding. The answers admit the filing of the claim in the Probate Court and the allowance thereof, but contend that by reason of the judgment entered upon said claim by the Probate Court, said claim is res adjudicata so far as this proceeding is concerned.
Section 278 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 59, provides that taxes properly assessed "may be collected by distraint or by a proceeding in court * * * but only if begun * * * within six years after the assessment of the tax * * *."
This section is the same in the Revenue Acts of 1932, 1934 and 1936, § 276(c), 26 U.S.C.A. § 276(c). The decisions unquestionably hold that the Probate Court of Cook County is a court, within the meaning universally accorded that term. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. United States
...have come to our attention to be ‘a proceeding in court’ within § 276(c). United States v. Ettelson, 8 Cir., 159 F.2d 193;United States v. Paisley, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 237;United States v. First National Bank, D.C., 54 F.Supp. 351. Compare Berrymont Land Co. v. Davis Creek Land & Coal Co., 110......
-
United States v. Hoper
...on the parties as to the matters in dispute unless the judgment is reversed or set aside on appeal or review. United States v. Paisley, D.C.N.D.Ill., 26 F. Supp. 237; Sinnickson v. Perkins, 137 Ill.App. 10, affirmed 231 Ill. 492, 83 N.E. 194. Since no appeal was taken and the time therefor ......
-
Heinz v. Davenport Bank & Trust Co.
... ... assets. In support of its position the appellee states that ... by the presentation of a claim in receivership proceedings a ... creditor submits ... 83; Gibson v ... Hale, 57 Tex. 405; Jameson v. Barber, 56 Wis ... 630, 14 N.W. 859; United States v. Paisley, D. C., ... 26 F.Supp. 237; Gooldy v. Lavender, 223 Mo.App. 354, ... 16 S.W.2d ... ...
-
United States v. Saxe, Civ. A. 57-902-A.
...a judicial determination are distinguishable. See, e. g., United States v. Ettelson, 7 Cir., 159 F.2d 193, following United States v. Paisley, D.C. N.D.Ill., 26 F.Supp. 237; United States v. Pate, D.C.W.D.Ark., 47 F.Supp. 965; United States v. First Nat. Bank, D.C. N.D.Ohio, 54 F.Supp. ...