Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner

23 T.C. 8, 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 74
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 8, 1954
DocketDocket No. 20672
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 23 T.C. 8 (Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 8, 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 74 (tax 1954).

Opinion

OPINION.

Withey, Judge:

Although not raised by either of the parties, the factual situation before us presents the question of whether we now have jurisdiction of the proceeding. The pertinent portion of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 relative to the assessment and collection of taxes in the case of bankruptcy and receivership proceedings is set out below.1

Upon the filing of the petition herein we acquired exclusive jurisdiction of the proceeding. Subsequently, when the petitioner was adjudicated a bankrupt, we were not ousted from jurisdiction, but our jurisdiction became concurrent with that of the bankruptcy court. Plains Buying and Selling Association, 5 B. T. A. 1147; M. R. Hoffman, 7 B. T. A. 303; Robert T. Cunningham, 20 B. T. A. 428; Missouri Pacific R. R. Co., 30 B. T. A. 587. Where we and another court have concurrent jurisdiction over a cause involving the correct tax liability of a taxpayer, the applicable rule is that the court which reaches the cause on its calendar first may proceed to the trial for decision of the matter without further delay. James H. S. Ellis, 14 T. C. 484.

Here the bankruptcy court reached the cause on its calendar first and proceeded to trial and adjudication, among others, of the only questions presented in the instant proceeding, namely, the liability of petitioner, as transferee of the assets of Startz, as transferee of the assets of Clarkson for unpaid income taxes of Clarkson for 1944 and 1945, and the extent of such liability. In making such adjudication the bankruptcy court determined that the petitioner was so liable and to the extent determined and claimed by respondent.

Section 284 (d) of the Eevenue Act of 1926 denied to a taxpayer the right to bring any suit for the recovery of the tax after he had adopted the procedure of appealing to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the Circuit Court of Appeals. An exception to such denial was provided in section 283 (b) in the case of appeals which had been filed under section 274 (a) of the Eevenue Act of 1924 and were pending before the Board at the time of the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1926. In Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U. S. 716, the Court was called on to consider the question of how to resolve possible conflicts that might arise in cases pending before the Board at the time of the enactment of the Eevenue Act of 1926 which the Board decided against the taxpayer and in which the taxpayer paid the tax, prosecuted an appeal from the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the meantime filed suit in the District Court for refund of the tax. Eespecting the matter the Court said:

But tlie apparent conflict in such cases can be easily resolved by the use of the principles of res judicata. If both remedies are pursued, the one in a District Court for refund, and the other on a petition for review in the Circuit Court of Appeals, the judgment which is first rendered will then put an end to the questions involved, and in effect make all proceedings in the other <jourt of no avail. Whichever judgment is first in time is necessarily final to the extent to which it becomes a judgment. * * *

Under the rule set out in the foregoing statement of the Supreme Court, and since the judgment of the bankruptcy court has become final, we think such judgment effected a final disposition of all questions before us and rendered the instant proceeding of no avail.

Furthermore, we think the foregoing conclusion is supported by the provisions of section 274 of the 1939 Code. Section 274 (a) provides for the immediate assessment against the bankrupt of any deficiency determined against him and not theretofore assessed in accordance with law. Provision is made for filing with the bankruptcy court claim for the deficiency so assessed, despite the pendency of proceedings in the Tax Court for the redetermination of the deficiency. Section 274 (b) provides that any portion of the claim allowed in the bankruptcy proceeding remaining unpaid at the termination of the proceeding shall be paid by the taxpayer upon notice and demand, and that collection thereof from the taxpayer may be made by distraint or by a proceeding in court, within 6 years after termination of the bankruptcy proceeding.

It thus appears that by the provisions of section 274 Congress not only has provided for the determination by the bankruptcy court of the amount and validity of a deficiency for which claim is filed but has authorized, following the close of the bankruptcy proceedings and without further proceedings in the Tax Court or elsewhere, the immediate collection of any unpaid portion of the deficiency allowed by the bankruptcy court. In view of this, it appears that Congress intended that once a bankruptcy court allowed a deficiency for which claim was filed and that court’s action became final, the amount and validity of the deficiency was not thereafter to be the subject of consideration by the Tax Court. Such a view conforms to the intent of Congress shown by the prohibition contained in section 274 (a) against the filing of a petition of redetermination with the Tax Court after adjudication of bankruptcy.

In view of what has been said above, we hold that the issues presented by the instant proceeding have become res judicata.

An order will be entered dismissing the proceeding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Joseph Yerushalmi
E.D. New York, 2019
Thomas L. Freytag and Sharon N. Freytag v. Commissioner
110 T.C. No. 5 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)
Freytag v. Commissioner
110 T.C. No. 5 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)
Kroh v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 29 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
Bostian v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 589 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Smith v. United States (In Re Smith)
122 B.R. 130 (M.D. Florida, 1990)
McQuade v. Commissioner
84 T.C. No. 9 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Valley Die Cast Corp. v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 103 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Bailey v. United States
415 F. Supp. 1305 (D. New Jersey, 1976)
Tanner v. Commissioner
64 T.C. 415 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
Browning v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 80 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
In Re Fotochrome, Inc.
346 F. Supp. 958 (E.D. New York, 1972)
Fotochrome, Inc. v. Commissioner
57 T.C. 842 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Gurley v. Commissioner
1966 T.C. Memo. 52 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Williams v. Commissioner
44 T.C. 673 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)
Roberson v. Commissioner
41 T.C. 577 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Lambert v. Commissioner
39 T.C. 954 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Harris v. Commissioner
32 T.C. 1216 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 8 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 T.C. 8, 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comas-inc-v-commissioner-tax-1954.