Tinkoff v. Campbell

Seventh Circuit

Tinkoff v. Campbell

158 F.2d 855, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 614, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1946

DocketNo. 8962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 F.2d 855 (Tinkoff v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tinkoff v. Campbell, 158 F.2d 855, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 614, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3918 (7th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is a disbarred attorney. Since his disbarment he has established offices in which he acts “as a layman and accountant, and not as an attorney, certified public accountant or public accountant, or as an attorney or agent licensed to practice before the Treasury Department.” His business in part consists of advising taxpayers in filling out income tax returns. Appellee, as Collector of Internal Revenue for the First Collection District of Illinois, acting under the authority of Section 7(d) of Treasury Department Circular No. 230, published pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 261, has refused ,to permit him to represent taxpayers in explaining adjustments and computations in their returns or to accompany them upon interviews necessitated by such returns. Appellant contends that this action unduly restricts his constitutional rights of liberty, property and pursuit of happiness, and accordingly sued to enjoin the Collect- or from interfering with his rights to conduct his business as a layman, and for other relief.

We find no merit whatever in any of the contentions raised by appellant and are fully in accord with the action oLthe District Court in dismissing the petition for injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

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

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is a disbarred attorney. Since his disbarment he has established offices in which he acts “as a layman and accountant, and not as an attorney, certified public accountant or public accountant, or as an attorney or agent licensed to practice before the Treasury Department.” His business in part consists of advising taxpayers in filling out income tax returns. Appellee, as Collector of Internal Revenue for the First Collection District of Illinois, acting under the authority of Section 7(d) of Treasury Department Circular No. 230, published pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 261, has refused ,to permit him to represent taxpayers in explaining adjustments and computations in their returns or to accompany them upon interviews necessitated by such returns. Appellant contends that this action unduly restricts his constitutional rights of liberty, property and pursuit of happiness, and accordingly sued to enjoin the Collect- or from interfering with his rights to conduct his business as a layman, and for other relief.

We find no merit whatever in any of the contentions raised by appellant and are fully in accord with the action oLthe District Court in dismissing the petition for injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F.2d 855, 35 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 614, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinkoff-v-campbell-ca7-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack