Robert E. Bowen and Irene Bowen, His Wife v. United States of America

Fifth Circuit

Robert E. Bowen and Irene Bowen, His Wife v. United States of America

331 F.2d 149, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1263, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5584

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 1964

Docket20867

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 331 F.2d 149 (Robert E. Bowen and Irene Bowen, His Wife v. United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert E. Bowen and Irene Bowen, His Wife v. United States of America, 331 F.2d 149, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1263, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5584 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the complaint of appellants to enjoin the collection of federal income taxes for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm on two grounds. First, it was not clear from the *150 complaint that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail on its tax claim and thus the attempted collection was not merely an exaction in the guise of a tax. Second, and either ground is conclusive, equity jurisdiction did not otherwise exist because appellants failed to avail themselves of their legal remedy to have the alleged deficiencies in tax redetermined by the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7421(a); Enochs v. Williams Packing Company, 1962, 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292; Abel v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 1962, 309 F.2d 751; and Botta v. Scanlon, 2 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 392.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed the complaint of appellants to enjoin the collection of federal income taxes for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm on two grounds. First, it was not clear from the *150 complaint that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail on its tax claim and thus the attempted collection was not merely an exaction in the guise of a tax. Second, and either ground is conclusive, equity jurisdiction did not otherwise exist because appellants failed to avail themselves of their legal remedy to have the alleged deficiencies in tax redetermined by the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7421(a); Enochs v. Williams Packing Company, 1962, 370 U.S. 1, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292; Abel v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 1962, 309 F.2d 751; and Botta v. Scanlon, 2 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 392.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F.2d 149, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1263, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-e-bowen-and-irene-bowen-his-wife-v-united-states-of-america-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack