Paul L. And Marie C. Drouin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Paul L. And Marie C. Drouin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

203 F.2d 953, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 889, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4276

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1953

Docket10958_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 203 F.2d 953 (Paul L. And Marie C. Drouin 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

Paul L. And Marie C. Drouin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 203 F.2d 953, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 889, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4276 (3d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by a taxpayer from a decision of the Tax Court which dismissed his case there for want of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was found in the taxpayer’s failure to follow the statute with regard to time for proceedings in the Tax Court. The Tax Court’s action was correct. It also appears that the taxpayer was given the notice required by -statute and that he failed to appear at the hearing before the Tax Court. While we endeavor to be particularly careful in cases where a taxpayer represents himself, as this one does, we find nothing in the law to help him nor anything in the circumstances of his case which makes us feel that the law has worked an injustice because of our inability to give him assistance.

The decision will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by a taxpayer from a decision of the Tax Court which dismissed his case there for want of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was found in the taxpayer’s failure to follow the statute with regard to time for proceedings in the Tax Court. The Tax Court’s action was correct. It also appears that the taxpayer was given the notice required by -statute and that he failed to appear at the hearing before the Tax Court. While we endeavor to be particularly careful in cases where a taxpayer represents himself, as this one does, we find nothing in the law to help him nor anything in the circumstances of his case which makes us feel that the law has worked an injustice because of our inability to give him assistance.

The decision will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 F.2d 953, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 889, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-l-and-marie-c-drouin-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack