Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Sixth Circuit

Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

211 F.2d 131, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 450, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 17, 1954

Docket11802, 11803

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 131 (Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Worthington v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 211 F.2d 131, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 450, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495 (6th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these proceedings to redetermine deficiencies found by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the taxpayers’ income taxes covering the taxable years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, the petitioning taxpayer, Ed W. Worthington, appeared in propria persona at the hearing before this court. Case No. 11,802 relates to deficiencies in income taxes of taxpayer Ed W. Worthington for the taxable years 1946 and 1947; and Case No. 11,803, in which Worthington’s wife, Maxine Worthington, joined him as a petitioner, relates to the taxable years 1948 and 1949.

The Tax Court of the United States dismissed both cases, on motion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the reason that it appeared from the record presented and the evidence submitted that the petitions had not been filed with the court within the time prescribed by the statute.

Upon consideration of the arguments made at the hearing before us and the briefs filed herein, and on review of the whole record, the finding of the Tax Court that the petitions had not been filed within the time prescribed is supported by the evidence and is not clearly *132 erroneous. The Tax Court properly held that it had no jurisdiction, for the reason that the required petitions for rede-termination to be filed by the taxpayers were not filed within ninety days after the mailing of the notices of deficiency, as provided in section 272(a) of' the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A.

The instant cases are clearly distinguishable from Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 199 F.2d 902; and Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 785. The following cases are considered to be in point and to support the conclusion which we have reached, that the Tax Court ruled correctly that it did not possess jurisdiction to consider and act upon the petitions of the taxpayers. DiPros-pero v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 76; Poynor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 521.

The decisions of the Tax Court in these two cases are affirmed; and it is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these proceedings to redetermine deficiencies found by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the taxpayers’ income taxes covering the taxable years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, the petitioning taxpayer, Ed W. Worthington, appeared in propria persona at the hearing before this court. Case No. 11,802 relates to deficiencies in income taxes of taxpayer Ed W. Worthington for the taxable years 1946 and 1947; and Case No. 11,803, in which Worthington’s wife, Maxine Worthington, joined him as a petitioner, relates to the taxable years 1948 and 1949.

The Tax Court of the United States dismissed both cases, on motion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the reason that it appeared from the record presented and the evidence submitted that the petitions had not been filed with the court within the time prescribed by the statute.

Upon consideration of the arguments made at the hearing before us and the briefs filed herein, and on review of the whole record, the finding of the Tax Court that the petitions had not been filed within the time prescribed is supported by the evidence and is not clearly *132 erroneous. The Tax Court properly held that it had no jurisdiction, for the reason that the required petitions for rede-termination to be filed by the taxpayers were not filed within ninety days after the mailing of the notices of deficiency, as provided in section 272(a) of' the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A.

The instant cases are clearly distinguishable from Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 199 F.2d 902; and Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 785. The following cases are considered to be in point and to support the conclusion which we have reached, that the Tax Court ruled correctly that it did not possess jurisdiction to consider and act upon the petitions of the taxpayers. DiPros-pero v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 76; Poynor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 521.

The decisions of the Tax Court in these two cases are affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F.2d 131, 45 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 450, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthington-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-worthington-v-ca6-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack