Woodward

Court of Claims

Woodward

546 F.2d 430, 211 Ct. Cl. 341, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5916, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 302

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 6, 1976

DocketNo. 377-74

StatusPublished

This text of 546 F.2d 430 (Woodward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woodward, 546 F.2d 430, 211 Ct. Cl. 341, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5916, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 302 (cc 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Taxes; income tax; deficiency; claim fending before Tax Court; Court of Claims jurisdiction. — On October 6, 1976 the court entered the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, Kunzig and Bennett, Judges.

“This income tax case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion [342]*342for suspension of proceedings. These motions have been considered without oral argument.

“The case is a companion to Dorsey v. United States, ante at 339, and raises the identical question on facts which are practically identical (except for the amounts involved). There is no distinction beween the cases, as to the issue now before us, and the parties make precisely the same arguments. Our order in Dorsey v. United States, supra, is controlling.

“it is therefore ordered AND concluded that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiff’s motion for suspension of proceedings is denied, and the petition is dismissed under section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code.”

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

Taxes; income tax; deficiency; claim fending before Tax Court; Court of Claims jurisdiction. — On October 6, 1976 the court entered the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, Kunzig and Bennett, Judges.

“This income tax case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion [342]*342for suspension of proceedings. These motions have been considered without oral argument.

“The case is a companion to Dorsey v. United States, ante at 339, and raises the identical question on facts which are practically identical (except for the amounts involved). There is no distinction beween the cases, as to the issue now before us, and the parties make precisely the same arguments. Our order in Dorsey v. United States, supra, is controlling.

“it is therefore ordered AND concluded that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiff’s motion for suspension of proceedings is denied, and the petition is dismissed under section 7422 of the Internal Revenue Code.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F.2d 430, 211 Ct. Cl. 341, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5916, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-cc-1976.