Max Dritz as Administrator of the Estate of Max Dritz and of Helen Dritz, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Fifth Circuit

Max Dritz as Administrator of the Estate of Max Dritz and of Helen Dritz, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

427 F.2d 1176, 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5184, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8651

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 1970

Docket28966

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 427 F.2d 1176 (Max Dritz as Administrator of the Estate of Max Dritz and of Helen Dritz, Deceased 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

Max Dritz as Administrator of the Estate of Max Dritz and of Helen Dritz, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 427 F.2d 1176, 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5184, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8651 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Largely because they failed to file federal income tax returns for the calendar years of 1962 and 1963, Max Dritz and his wife, Mrs. Helen Dritz, fell into a sea of difficulties with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with reference to tax liabilities for the years 1958 to 1963. They filed four petitions in the United States Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiencies asserted against them. The cases were consolidated. The liability of the taxpayers was determined in findings of fact and an opinion of the Tax Court issued on August 27, 1969. 1

The taxpayers produced no records or documentation as to their income for the years in suit. Max Dritz did not testify. Mrs. Dritz testified, but the Court found her testimony to be evasive, inconsistent, and generally implausible.

We are now asked to reverse the Tax Court on the argument that the determinations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were arbitrary, that this put the burden of proof as to the various issues on the Commissioner, and hence *1177 the Tax Court resolved the factual issues by the wrong standard.

This argument fails. In view of all the facts, as duly found and for which there is substantial support in the record, there is no basis for saying that the determinations of the Commissioner were arbitrary. Nor do we find any other basis for reversal.

The decision of the Tax Court is, on all issues, affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Paragraph 69, 175 P-H Memo TC.

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

PER CURIAM:

Largely because they failed to file federal income tax returns for the calendar years of 1962 and 1963, Max Dritz and his wife, Mrs. Helen Dritz, fell into a sea of difficulties with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with reference to tax liabilities for the years 1958 to 1963. They filed four petitions in the United States Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiencies asserted against them. The cases were consolidated. The liability of the taxpayers was determined in findings of fact and an opinion of the Tax Court issued on August 27, 1969. 1

The taxpayers produced no records or documentation as to their income for the years in suit. Max Dritz did not testify. Mrs. Dritz testified, but the Court found her testimony to be evasive, inconsistent, and generally implausible.

We are now asked to reverse the Tax Court on the argument that the determinations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were arbitrary, that this put the burden of proof as to the various issues on the Commissioner, and hence *1177 the Tax Court resolved the factual issues by the wrong standard.

This argument fails. In view of all the facts, as duly found and for which there is substantial support in the record, there is no basis for saying that the determinations of the Commissioner were arbitrary. Nor do we find any other basis for reversal.

The decision of the Tax Court is, on all issues, affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Paragraph 69, 175 P-H Memo TC.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 F.2d 1176, 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5184, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-dritz-as-administrator-of-the-estate-of-max-dritz-and-of-helen-dritz-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack