Estate of Fortugno v. Commissioner

1965 T.C. Memo. 124, 24 T.C.M. 646, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 207
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 10, 1965
DocketDocket Nos. 69030, 69031.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1965 T.C. Memo. 124 (Estate of Fortugno 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
Estate of Fortugno v. Commissioner, 1965 T.C. Memo. 124, 24 T.C.M. 646, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 207 (tax 1965).

Opinion

Estate of Daniel Fortugno, Deceased, Connie M. Fortugno, Executrix v. Commissioner. Estate of Daniel P. Fortugno, Deceased, Connie M. Fortugno, Executrix, and Connie M. Fortugno, Surviving Spouse v. Commissioner.
Estate of Fortugno v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 69030, 69031.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1965-124; 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 207; 24 T.C.M. (CCH) 646; T.C.M. (RIA) 65124;
May 10, 1965
John J. Gibbons, for the petitioners. Francis X. Gallagher and Scott A. Dahlquist, for the respondent.

FAY

Memorandum Opinion

FAY, Judge: The respondent determined that petitioners were liable for deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax under sections 291(a), 293(b), and 294(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and corresponding prior statutes, for various years extending from 1934 to 1950. The parties have disposed of all issues regarding the deficiencies and are in agreement that the petitioners have remitted an amount in excess of their tax liabilities. The only issue remaining for decision is when did the petitioners' remittances constitute an overpayment.

All of the facts have been stipulated. The petitioners agree*208 that if they had been joined in the consolidated trial in the case of Alfred Fortugno, 41 T.C. 316 (1963), the Findings of Fact made by this Court therein would have been the same. Accordingly, we incorporate in these proceedings as our Findings of Fact the Findings of Fact in Alfred Fortugno, supra.

Having done so, we hold, on the authority of Alfred Fortugno, supra, that petitioners' remittances here did not constitute a payment of tax until such time as the petitioners agree to, or acquiesce in, the asserted tax deficiencies.

Decisions will be entered under Rule 50.

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

Related

Fortugno v. Commissioner
41 T.C. 316 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1965 T.C. Memo. 124, 24 T.C.M. 646, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-fortugno-v-commissioner-tax-1965.