Louis D. Benn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fifth Circuit

Louis D. Benn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

394 F.2d 505

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1968

Docket23851_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 394 F.2d 505 (Louis D. Benn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis D. Benn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 394 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal raises only questions of fact relating to the correctness of the Tax Court’s determination of a substantial deficiency in petitioner’s income for the calendar years 1953 and 1955 and of the existence of fraud with intent to evade the tax as to a part of the deficiencies. We conclude that the Tax Court was fully warranted in resolving both of these issues against the taxpayer.

The petitioner urges that the Tax Court record is inadequate to show the full facts for the tax years involved, because his brother, James Benn, who had conducted most of the transactions for him, failed to appear as a witness at the hearing. He requests a remand for the purpose of eliciting additional proof by James. No such motion was made in the Tax Court during the months the case was under submission, and we conclude that the Tax Court did not err in refusing thereafter to reopen the proceedings.

The decision of the Tax Court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal raises only questions of fact relating to the correctness of the Tax Court’s determination of a substantial deficiency in petitioner’s income for the calendar years 1953 and 1955 and of the existence of fraud with intent to evade the tax as to a part of the deficiencies. We conclude that the Tax Court was fully warranted in resolving both of these issues against the taxpayer.

The petitioner urges that the Tax Court record is inadequate to show the full facts for the tax years involved, because his brother, James Benn, who had conducted most of the transactions for him, failed to appear as a witness at the hearing. He requests a remand for the purpose of eliciting additional proof by James. No such motion was made in the Tax Court during the months the case was under submission, and we conclude that the Tax Court did not err in refusing thereafter to reopen the proceedings.

The decision of the Tax Court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-d-benn-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack