Noel Tancred Escofil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Noel Tancred Escofil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

464 F.2d 358, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5092, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8783

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1972

Docket71-1719 to 71-1721

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 464 F.2d 358 (Noel Tancred Escofil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Noel Tancred Escofil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 464 F.2d 358, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5092, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8783 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Noel Tancred Escofil (“taxpayer”) appeals from a Tax Court decision sustaining income tax deficiencies assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service (“the Service”) for the years 1966 through 1968. See TCM 1971-131. Taxpayer raises here basically the same *359 contentions argued before the Tax C°urt.

His first assertion is that he should be permitted deductions to the extent of income allegedly lost due to the seizure by taxpayer’s landlord of certain equipment used by taxpayer in his capacity as an educator. Taxpayer concedes that the cost of the equipment was nominal. Nevertheless, he attempts to justify deductions totaling approximately $31,500 over the three-year period in question. His theory is that this figure represents the anticipated earnings lost as a result of the landlord’s distraint. We join the Tax Court in acknowledging taxpayer’s sincerity in pressing for these deductions. However, we must follow the settled precedent denying a cash basis taxpayer any deduction for the loss of anticipated receipts which the taxpayer will never be required to report as income. See Ernest L. Rink, 51 T.C. 746, 753 (1969).

The second deduction attempted by taxpayer and denied by the Service involved withholding and FICA taxes deducted from taxpayer’s wages during the 1966-1968 period. Deductions for FICA taxes are expressly precluded by § 275(a) (1) (A). And, since taxpayer applied his 1966-1968 withholding taxes as credits against his respective income tax obligations for these years, § 275(a) (1) (C) prevents him from also deducting these taxes on his annual returns.

Taxpayer’s final contention concerns his alleged right to credit against income taxes owed for each year between 1966 and 1968 the FICA taxes withheld from his wages during the same periods. Section 31(b) is the only provision which authorizes credits for such taxes. And, since taxpayer does not appear to be entitled to any refund of FICA taxes under the special circumstances covered by § 6413(c) (1) (taxpayer with two or more employers within a single tax year), section 31(b) is not applicable.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Noel Tancred Escofil (“taxpayer”) appeals from a Tax Court decision sustaining income tax deficiencies assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service (“the Service”) for the years 1966 through 1968. See TCM 1971-131. Taxpayer raises here basically the same *359 contentions argued before the Tax C°urt.

His first assertion is that he should be permitted deductions to the extent of income allegedly lost due to the seizure by taxpayer’s landlord of certain equipment used by taxpayer in his capacity as an educator. Taxpayer concedes that the cost of the equipment was nominal. Nevertheless, he attempts to justify deductions totaling approximately $31,500 over the three-year period in question. His theory is that this figure represents the anticipated earnings lost as a result of the landlord’s distraint. We join the Tax Court in acknowledging taxpayer’s sincerity in pressing for these deductions. However, we must follow the settled precedent denying a cash basis taxpayer any deduction for the loss of anticipated receipts which the taxpayer will never be required to report as income. See Ernest L. Rink, 51 T.C. 746, 753 (1969).

The second deduction attempted by taxpayer and denied by the Service involved withholding and FICA taxes deducted from taxpayer’s wages during the 1966-1968 period. Deductions for FICA taxes are expressly precluded by § 275(a) (1) (A). And, since taxpayer applied his 1966-1968 withholding taxes as credits against his respective income tax obligations for these years, § 275(a) (1) (C) prevents him from also deducting these taxes on his annual returns.

Taxpayer’s final contention concerns his alleged right to credit against income taxes owed for each year between 1966 and 1968 the FICA taxes withheld from his wages during the same periods. Section 31(b) is the only provision which authorizes credits for such taxes. And, since taxpayer does not appear to be entitled to any refund of FICA taxes under the special circumstances covered by § 6413(c) (1) (taxpayer with two or more employers within a single tax year), section 31(b) is not applicable.

The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 F.2d 358, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5092, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noel-tancred-escofil-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack