Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Eugene C. Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue

Eighth Circuit

Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Eugene C. Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue

467 F.2d 474, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5603, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7268

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1972

Docket72-1212

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 467 F.2d 474 (Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Eugene C. Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Eugene C. Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue, 467 F.2d 474, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5603, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7268 (8th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the appellant-taxpayer, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., brought an action in a Missouri state court, which appellee removed to the federal district court, to redetermine the amount of taxpayer’s deficiencies, if any, in its payment of income taxes for the years 1965 and 1966. Taxpayer also requested that appellee District Director of Internal Revenue be enjoined from asserting or collecting any deficiencies for these years pending a judicial determination of its tax liability.

Taxpayer had originally filed a petition for redetermination of tax liability in the Tax Court of the United States, but, following the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, 1 the taxpayer requested the Tax Court to take no further action and instead it filed this action in state court. The Tax Reform Act changed the status of the Tax Court from an agency of the Executive Branch of the government to an institution purporting to be a legislative court under Article I of the Constitution. Taxpayer alleges that this statutory alteration of the status of the Tax Court is unconstitutional. 2

Following the removal of the taxpayer’s action to the federal district court, the district court (Judge Meredith) denied the taxpayer’s request to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2282, holding that the constitutional question raised was not substan *476 tial. The court also held that the taxpayer’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were specifically prohibited by statute, and the court therefore dismissed the action. From this determination the taxpayer appeals. We agree with the disposition made by Judge Meredith and affirm on the basis of his written opinion reported at 340 F.Supp. 4 (E.D.Mo.1972).

1

. Pub.L. No. 91-172 (Dec. 30, 1969), 83 Stat. 487.

2

. The United States Tax Court fully ventilated this claim and rejected tbe attack upon its jurisdiction. Burns, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392 (1971).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the appellant-taxpayer, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc., brought an action in a Missouri state court, which appellee removed to the federal district court, to redetermine the amount of taxpayer’s deficiencies, if any, in its payment of income taxes for the years 1965 and 1966. Taxpayer also requested that appellee District Director of Internal Revenue be enjoined from asserting or collecting any deficiencies for these years pending a judicial determination of its tax liability.

Taxpayer had originally filed a petition for redetermination of tax liability in the Tax Court of the United States, but, following the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, 1 the taxpayer requested the Tax Court to take no further action and instead it filed this action in state court. The Tax Reform Act changed the status of the Tax Court from an agency of the Executive Branch of the government to an institution purporting to be a legislative court under Article I of the Constitution. Taxpayer alleges that this statutory alteration of the status of the Tax Court is unconstitutional. 2

Following the removal of the taxpayer’s action to the federal district court, the district court (Judge Meredith) denied the taxpayer’s request to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2282, holding that the constitutional question raised was not substan *476 tial. The court also held that the taxpayer’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were specifically prohibited by statute, and the court therefore dismissed the action. From this determination the taxpayer appeals. We agree with the disposition made by Judge Meredith and affirm on the basis of his written opinion reported at 340 F.Supp. 4 (E.D.Mo.1972).

1

. Pub.L. No. 91-172 (Dec. 30, 1969), 83 Stat. 487.

2

. The United States Tax Court fully ventilated this claim and rejected tbe attack upon its jurisdiction. Burns, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392 (1971).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F.2d 474, 30 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5603, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stix-friedman-co-inc-a-corporation-v-eugene-c-coyle-jr-district-ca8-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack