Pilip v. United States

191 F. Supp. 943, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1501, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5559
CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedMarch 23, 1961
DocketCiv. No. A-13585
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 F. Supp. 943 (Pilip v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pilip v. United States, 191 F. Supp. 943, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1501, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5559 (D. Alaska 1961).

Opinion

HODGE, District Judge.

On September 14,1960, this Court rendered an opinion granting a motion of plaintiff for summary judgment against the defendants, requiring the District Director of Internal Revenue to account to plaintiff for all rents collected from the income of the property held by plaintiff and her husband as tenants by the entirety, directing the disposition thereof, and ordering that judgment may be entered in accordance with such opinion (186 F. Supp. 397). After waiting some months and finding that no judgment had been presented, the Court called upon counsel for plaintiff to present such. Plaintiff now presents a “Memorandum Brief on Construction of Court’s Opinion as to the Effect of Purported Power of Attorney,” challenging the opinion of the Court with respect to a power of attorney executed by Beulah Pilip as attorney in fact for Clem Y. and Beulah Pilip and the Pilip Paint Co. authorizing collection by the Department of Internal Revenue of certain of the income and withholding taxes involved from Clem and Beulah Pilip jointly and the Pilip Paint Co. (Opinion, at page 403). With such brief plaintiff [944]*944submits Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment contrary to the opinion of the Court with respect to this item, with which plaintiff is dissatisfied, but otherwise conforming to the judgment as ordered. Although plaintiff has not applied for rehearing and the Court finds this procedure most unusual, the position of the plaintiff will be reviewed.

The instrument involved is set forth in full in a footnote herein.1

[945]*945Plaintiff contends in substance that this instrument is not in truth and fact an irrevocable power; that there is “no evidence in the record” to support the proposition that Beulah Pilip as an attorney in fact could in any way delegate her agency to the Bob Dow Realty Co.; or that she was the agent or attorney in fact for Clem Pilip; that under the very terms of the power of attorney it was limited to the collection of rentals from the second floor of the property in question; that it is not a power of attorney, but a “limited delegation of agency”; that it does not by its terms in any way authorize the United States to apply any of the proceeds received from the agent Dow other than as provided by Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 6342; that the Pilip Paint Co. had no tax liability; that it was not the intention of plaintiff to have applied any of the monies to the tax liability of Pilip & Butt Painting Contractors; and that the instrument was revoked “the moment her (plaintiff’s) debt to the United States was paid.”

The instrument speaks for itself and needs no evidence to support it. By its terms plaintiff expressly authorized the Bob Dow Realty Co. to collect rentals from the property involved and pay such over to the United States, after retaining its commission, in settlement of the obligations of Clem V. and Beulah Pilip and the Pilip Paint Company for withholding, income, and FUTA taxes due the United States. No other construction can be placed upon it. There was no delegation of her agency to the Bob Dow Realty Co. The Court found that the Pilip Paint Co. is the successor in interest of the Pilip & Butt Painting Contractors, both of which were owned and controlled by Clem and Beulah Pilip jointly. The instrument was not revoked, either in fact or by operation of law, prior to payment of all tax obligations specified therein.

With respect to the provisions of Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 6342, relating to the application of the proceeds of a levy under the Internal Revenue laws, it should be observed that the joint tax obligations of Clem and Beulah Pilip and the Pilip Paint Co. and/or its predecessor the Pilip & Butt Painting Contractors, Inc., were fully paid by collections made pursuant to the questioned instrument prior to the levy made on the property on July 3, 1957 for the tax liability of Clem V. Pilip, of which plaintiff complains. The-statute, therefore, has no application to-such collections, but even if the statute-does apply in this instance I can find no-discrepancy between the method of application of the proceeds to specific tax liability on seized property specified by the statute and the distribution ordered by the Court.

Judgment is entered in accordance with the previous opinion of the Court, as submitted by defendants. No Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are required.

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

Related

Stern & Co. v. State Loan and Finance Corporation
205 F. Supp. 702 (D. Delaware, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 F. Supp. 943, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1501, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilip-v-united-states-akd-1961.