John M. Minneci v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Seventh Circuit

John M. Minneci v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

368 F.2d 161, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5743, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4731

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 1966

Docket15648_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 161 (John M. Minneci v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John M. Minneci v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 368 F.2d 161, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5743, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4731 (7th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

John M. Minneci (taxpayer) has filed a petition in this court seeking our review of a decision of the Tax Court of the United States entered December 10, 1965 which denied a motion theretofore filed to vacate an order entered July 29, 1965, which determined that taxpayer was not entitled to have the Tax Court’s decisions ¹ of June 21, 1965 ² vacated or modified on his motions of June 24 and July 2, 1965.³

On September 22, 1965, attorney Arthur H. Grant filed his appearance for taxpayer and on October 7, 1965, the Tax Court entered another order giving taxpayer leave to file, by counsel, another motion (which had been presented September 28, 1965) to reconsider the rulings on the earlier motions. On the latter motion, a hearing was held before Judge Mulroney on December 6, 1965, when taxpayer continued to be represented by his present attorney, Grant. On December 10, 1965 the motion to reconsider the above matters wás again denied, resulting in the present petition for review.

Taxpayer’s counsel contends in this court that the decision of the Tax Court was entered under a misapprehension, that no evidence was introduced in support thereof and that he should have been allowed either to modify the “stipulated decision” or a trial on the merits. We reject these contentions.

Taxpayer’s motions to reopen the proceedings were addressed to the sound discretion of the court and we would not be justified in overturning them in the absence of a showing that that court abused its discretion. The record reveals that taxpayer was informed of the amount and significance of the decisions to be entered against him. Not only did he learn this from the trial attorney for the Commission before the stipulations were signed, but Judge Drennen of that court carefully ascertained that taxpayer understood the stipulations before the decisions in question were entered.

We are convinced that the overwhelming evidence indicates that taxpayer signed the stipulations with an awareness of their significance and that therefore the Commissioner has met his [163]*163burden in sustaining the action of the Tax Court.

Accordingly we hold that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying taxpayer’s motions to reopen. Therefore, its order should be and is hereby affirmed.

Order affirmed.

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

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

John M. Minneci (taxpayer) has filed a petition in this court seeking our review of a decision of the Tax Court of the United States entered December 10, 1965 which denied a motion theretofore filed to vacate an order entered July 29, 1965, which determined that taxpayer was not entitled to have the Tax Court’s decisions ¹ of June 21, 1965 ² vacated or modified on his motions of June 24 and July 2, 1965.³

On September 22, 1965, attorney Arthur H. Grant filed his appearance for taxpayer and on October 7, 1965, the Tax Court entered another order giving taxpayer leave to file, by counsel, another motion (which had been presented September 28, 1965) to reconsider the rulings on the earlier motions. On the latter motion, a hearing was held before Judge Mulroney on December 6, 1965, when taxpayer continued to be represented by his present attorney, Grant. On December 10, 1965 the motion to reconsider the above matters wás again denied, resulting in the present petition for review.

Taxpayer’s counsel contends in this court that the decision of the Tax Court was entered under a misapprehension, that no evidence was introduced in support thereof and that he should have been allowed either to modify the “stipulated decision” or a trial on the merits. We reject these contentions.

Taxpayer’s motions to reopen the proceedings were addressed to the sound discretion of the court and we would not be justified in overturning them in the absence of a showing that that court abused its discretion. The record reveals that taxpayer was informed of the amount and significance of the decisions to be entered against him. Not only did he learn this from the trial attorney for the Commission before the stipulations were signed, but Judge Drennen of that court carefully ascertained that taxpayer understood the stipulations before the decisions in question were entered.

We are convinced that the overwhelming evidence indicates that taxpayer signed the stipulations with an awareness of their significance and that therefore the Commissioner has met his [163]*163burden in sustaining the action of the Tax Court.

Accordingly we hold that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying taxpayer’s motions to reopen. Therefore, its order should be and is hereby affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 161, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5743, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-m-minneci-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca7-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack