United States v. Livingstone

381 F. Supp. 607, 35 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 665, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6703
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedSeptember 18, 1974
DocketCiv. A. 71-2993-C
StatusPublished

This text of 381 F. Supp. 607 (United States v. Livingstone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Livingstone, 381 F. Supp. 607, 35 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 665, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6703 (D. Mass. 1974).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

CAFFREY, Chief Judge.

This is a civil action for recovery of unpaid income taxes, penalties, and interest alleged to be due and owing to the United States from defendants Louise F. and M. Eli Livingstone. The complaint also seeks an order setting aside an allegedly fraudulent transfer of a parcel of real property by defendant Louise F. Livingstone to defendant Maurice Fine, as Trustee of the Continental Investment Trust, and to set aside a subsequent transfer of the real property to Maurice Fine as Trustee of the Webb Trust, as well as foreclosure of a federal tax lien on said real property. In addition, the complaint seeks an order setting aside an allegedly fraudulent transfer of stock to Continental Investment Trust, which stock was allegedly owned by defendants Louise F. and M. Eli Livingstone. Foreclosure of a federal tax lien on this stock is also requested.

The case was continued on several occasions on the basis of representations by counsel that a settlement was imminent. However, a point in time arrived at which no settlement having been forthcoming the Court ordered the case to trial.

A non-jury trial was held which consisted merely of the introduction into evidence by the plaintiff United States of eight documents. Counsel for defendants made no objection to the admission in evidence of these eight documents, which consisted of seven duly certified Internal Revenue Service “Certificates of Assessments and Payments,” of taxpayers Louise F. and M. Eli Livingstone for the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1959, 1960 and 1961, and an eighth document, the certification of the foregoing seven Certificates of Assessments and Payments. The Government rested after the admission into evidence of the eight documents and the defendants rested without proffering any testimony or evidence. Counsel were then instructed by the Court to file requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Very detailed requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by counsel for the Government on June 26, 1974. No requests were filed by counsel for any defendant. However, the Court received a letter dated July 3, 1974 from counsel of record for the defendants advising that he had received the Government’s requests for findings and conclusions, and on July 15, 1974 counsel for defendants wrote to the Court and advised that he had no objection to any of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law save that portion thereof which he said charged Louise F. Livingstone “with interest on interest, contrary to the present status of the tax laws, 26 U.S.C. § 6601(f)(2), and contrary to the pleadings and evidence in the case which fail to mention anything about interest being charged on interest.”

Treating, first, defendants’ objection to interest on interest, I rule that 26 U.S.C. § 6601(f)(2), which is the portion of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 relied on by counsel for defendants, does not apply to the tax years in issue in this ease. The assessments for the years 1952 and 1953 were made pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and Section 294(b) of the 1939 Code does provide for assessments of interest on unpaid interest. I rule that the 1939 Code controls in the instant case, despite the fact that the assessments in issue were made subsequent to the enactment of the 1954 Code. See Ginsburg v. United States, 278 F.2d 470 (1 Cir. 1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 878, 81 S.Ct. 166, 5 L.Ed.2d 101; United States v. Glassner, 287 F.2d 433 (7 Cir. 1961); Ingannamorte v. United States, 189 F.Supp. 341 (D.N.J.1960). Therefore, as a matter of law the Government is entitled to recover interest on the interest assessed *610 against and unpaid by Louise F. Livingstone for the calendar years 1952 and 1953.

I likewise rule that there is no merit to the objection contained in the letter of defendants’ counsel to recovery of interest on interest on the grounds that such recovery would be “contrary to the pleadings and evidence in the case which fail to mention anything about interest being charged on interest.” I rule that the statement contained in Count One of the complaint, that the Government seeks recovery for unpaid “income tax and interest . . . plus accrued interest according to law,” is an adequate disclosure of the fact that the Government was seeking the interest allowed by the then state of the law, i. e., interest on unpaid interest.

The Court is fully aware that the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in an ordinary case looks with disfavor on the verbatim adoption by a trial court of requests for findings and conclusions filed by prevailing counsel. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008-1009 (1 Cir. 1970); Nyyssonen v. Bendix Corp., 342 F.2d 531, 532 (1 Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 847, 86 S.Ct. 63, 15 L.Ed.2d 86. However, this Court has in mind that the Court of Appeals recognized, in the Las Colinas opinion, that extraordinary circumstances in a complex case may justify adopting counsel’s proposed findings. Id. 426 F.2d at 1009-1010. I believe that the instant case may properly be characterized as a complex case. See dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1, 19, 94 S.Ct. 2757, 41 L.Ed.2d 535 (1974). I am further of the opinion that since the “trial” consisted merely of the Government’s unobjected to proffer of the operative tax documents, that kind of a trial takes this case out of the ordinary rule. There is no issue of credibility to be resolved, there is no conflicting evidence, and a careful review of the Government’s proposed findings establishes that they are, in fact, supported by and keyed to the documents introduced in evidence. Consequently, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are substantially the same as those requested by counsel for the Government, are adopted as this Court’s findings and conclusions herein

Findings of Fact

1. A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury made assessments against the defendants Louise F. and M. Eli Livingstone for unpaid income taxes and interest as follows:

Year Date Tax Interest Credits Unpaid Assessed Balance

1952 8/13/65 $97,989.28 $72,866.53

5/9/66 $ 329.22

5/12/66 158.92

5/17/66 9.55

3/22/73 151,926.33 $ 18,431.79

1953 9/3/65 36,305.18 74,048.43 0 110,353.61

$128,785.40

2. On the respective dates of assessment of the liabilities described in paragraph 1 above, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury gave to the defendants Louise F. and M. Eli Livingstone notice of those assessments and made demand upon them for payment thereof.

3.

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

Related

Glass City Bank v. United States
326 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co.
418 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1974)
David Ginsburg v. United States
278 F.2d 470 (First Circuit, 1960)
Einard Nyyssonen v. Bendix Corporation
342 F.2d 531 (First Circuit, 1965)
Ingannamorte v. United States
189 F. Supp. 341 (D. New Jersey, 1960)
United States v. Hodes
355 F.2d 746 (Second Circuit, 1966)
Gradsky v. United States
382 U.S. 846 (Supreme Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 F. Supp. 607, 35 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 665, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-livingstone-mad-1974.