Parks v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Determination of deficiency as to 1952 held not barred by petitioners' claim of "accord and satisfaction." 2. Addition to tax under section 294(d)(1)(A), I.R.C. 1939, sustained.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Raum, Judge:
1. Petitioners do not challenge the correctness of the Commissioner’s determination as to 1952. Instead, they argue that there has been an “accord and satisfaction,” a compromise or settlement for 1952, between them and the then collector of internal revenue for the Boston district; and that the Commissioner is therefore precluded from determining any deficiency as to 1952.(a) In the first place, it is highly dubious whether this issue is properly pleaded. Rule 7(e) (4) (B) of our Rules of Practice requires a petitioner to include in paragraph 4 of his petition “clear and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Botany Worsted Mills v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Commissioner v. AckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Joyce v. GentschCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
- Goldsmith v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
- L. Loewy & Son v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Hudock v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Urbano v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2004
- Service Bolt & Nut Co. Profit Sharing Trust v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
- Estate of Meyer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Rodriguez v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1986
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.