Jay C. And Sarah C. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Jay C. And Sarah C. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

222 F.2d 922, 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 976, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5133

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1955

Docket12324

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 F.2d 922 (Jay C. And Sarah C. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jay C. And Sarah C. Evans v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 222 F.2d 922, 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 976, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5133 (6th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this proceeding the petitioners ask us to set aside the Tax Court’s order dismissing their petition for failure properly to prosecute pursuant to the Rules of Practice of the Tax Court, and to set aside said court’s subsequent denial of petitioners’ motions to vacate its said order of dismissal.

It appears that the petitioners conspicuously failed to follow the Rules of Practice of the Tax Court, 26 U.S.C.A. following § 1111, in the preparation and prosecution of their petition, that they were given timely opportunity to conform to the said Rules of Practice and timely opportunity for hearing upon the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. It further appears that the Tax Court acted in conformity with its own published Rule, Rule 7(a) (2) in dismissing the petition and did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or in abuse of its discretion in ordering the petition to be dismissed and in denying petitioners’ motions to set aside said order.

It is accordingly ordered that the orders of the Tax Court herein be and they hereby are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this proceeding the petitioners ask us to set aside the Tax Court’s order dismissing their petition for failure properly to prosecute pursuant to the Rules of Practice of the Tax Court, and to set aside said court’s subsequent denial of petitioners’ motions to vacate its said order of dismissal.

It appears that the petitioners conspicuously failed to follow the Rules of Practice of the Tax Court, 26 U.S.C.A. following § 1111, in the preparation and prosecution of their petition, that they were given timely opportunity to conform to the said Rules of Practice and timely opportunity for hearing upon the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. It further appears that the Tax Court acted in conformity with its own published Rule, Rule 7(a) (2) in dismissing the petition and did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or in abuse of its discretion in ordering the petition to be dismissed and in denying petitioners’ motions to set aside said order.

It is accordingly ordered that the orders of the Tax Court herein be and they hereby are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 922, 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 976, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jay-c-and-sarah-c-evans-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca6-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack