Ralph B. Wattley and Josephine R. Wattley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Second Circuit

Ralph B. Wattley and Josephine R. Wattley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

298 F.2d 791, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 516, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6127

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 1962

Docket49, Docket 27004

StatusPublished

This text of 298 F.2d 791 (Ralph B. Wattley and Josephine R. Wattley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ralph B. Wattley and Josephine R. Wattley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 298 F.2d 791, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 516, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6127 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts relevant to this appeal are stated in our opinion on a prior appeal of this case, reported at 275 F.2d 461, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864, 81 S.Ct. 107, 5 L.Ed. 2d 86. At that time we remanded the case to the Tax Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion and, contrary to the taxpayer’s 1 contentions, the Tax Court’s subsequent opinion, TC Memo 1961-24, filed January 31, 1961, correctly interpreted our mandate. The taxpayer also asks us to reexamine *792 our decision made upon his former appeal that his income should be spread over the period 1944-1951 rather than 1931-1951; but the question has been decided and we see no reason for reexamining it here.

The government has conceded the validity of the taxpayer’s final contention, that he should receive a credit for his previous payment of $98.01, which consisted of $81.00 in taxes and $17.01 interest.

Therefore, we remand solely for the purpose of reducing the deficiency by virtue of that payment.

1

. We refer to Mr. Wattley as the taxpayer since his wife is involved only by reason of their joint return.

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

PER CURIAM.

The facts relevant to this appeal are stated in our opinion on a prior appeal of this case, reported at 275 F.2d 461, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 864, 81 S.Ct. 107, 5 L.Ed. 2d 86. At that time we remanded the case to the Tax Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion and, contrary to the taxpayer’s 1 contentions, the Tax Court’s subsequent opinion, TC Memo 1961-24, filed January 31, 1961, correctly interpreted our mandate. The taxpayer also asks us to reexamine *792 our decision made upon his former appeal that his income should be spread over the period 1944-1951 rather than 1931-1951; but the question has been decided and we see no reason for reexamining it here.

The government has conceded the validity of the taxpayer’s final contention, that he should receive a credit for his previous payment of $98.01, which consisted of $81.00 in taxes and $17.01 interest.

Therefore, we remand solely for the purpose of reducing the deficiency by virtue of that payment.

1

. We refer to Mr. Wattley as the taxpayer since his wife is involved only by reason of their joint return.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F.2d 791, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 516, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-b-wattley-and-josephine-r-wattley-v-commissioner-of-internal-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack