Legal Opinion
Haag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided June 14, 1932No. 4680PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Petitioner relies on two grounds for reversal of the order of the Board: (a) The statute of limitations had run, and the claim was barred, (b) The administration of the estate of Louis E. Haag had been closed and Elnora C. Haag discharged as executrix, when respondent mailed the deficiency notice to Elnora C. Haag, executrix. The Board of Tax Appeals was therefore without jurisdiction to hear the application of one who no longer existed.
Statute of Limitations. Section 277(a), Revenue Act 1924 (26 USCA § 1057 note) provides for a short period of limitation…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burnet v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
- Whitmer v. LucasCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1931
3Cited by23 opinions
- Olsen v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1951
- Crude Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
- Clifford O. Boren v. R. A. Riddell, District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- In the Matter of Nimz Transportation, IncCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.