Peoples Security Life Insurance Company, Successor to Peoples Life Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. v. The United States

833 F.2d 1001, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 715
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedDecember 1, 1987
DocketAppeal 87-1396
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 833 F.2d 1001 (Peoples Security Life Insurance Company, Successor to Peoples Life Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peoples Security Life Insurance Company, Successor to Peoples Life Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. v. The United States, 833 F.2d 1001, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 715 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final decision of the United States Claims Court, upholding taxpayer Peoples Security Life Insurance Company’s assessed taxes for 1973 and 1974, is affirmed.

OPINION

Taxpayer brought a suit in the United States Claims Court to recover federal income taxes and assessed interest paid for tax years 1973 and 1974. Before the trial court’s decision in the present case, the Claims Court decided, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, Ohio National Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 477, aff'd on op. below, 807 F.2d 1577 (1987), which squarely dealt with the issues in question in taxpayer’s present suit. On April 22, 1987, Judge Wiese decided in the government’s favor based on the Ohio National decision. The trial court stated that no “legally significant distinction[s]” existed between the taxpayer’s suit and Ohio National and that the court was bound by the Ohio National decision.

We affirm on the basis of Judge Wiese’s opinion. We too perceive no significant differences between the taxpayer’s suit and the facts and authority of Ohio National. Even if this panel wishes to deviate from the holding in Ohio National, which we do not, we would be unable to do so since our circuit practice does not permit one three-judge panel to overrule another three-judge panel. Mother’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Mama’s Pizza, Inc., 723 F.2d 1566, 1573, 221 U.S.P.Q. 394, 400 (Fed.Cir.1983) (“The court may overrule a prior holding having precedential status only by an in banc decision.”).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Principal Mutual Life Insurance v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 157 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Principal Mutual Life Insurance v. United States
26 Cl. Ct. 616 (Court of Claims, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
833 F.2d 1001, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-security-life-insurance-company-successor-to-peoples-life-cafc-1987.