Weisser v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A petition was filed captioned in the names of husband and wife but only the husband's name appeared in the body of the petition and it was improperly verified. Later the husband filed an amended petition in proper form and the Board permitted its filing.
Read the full summary
A petition was filed captioned in the names of husband and wife but only the husband's name appeared in the body of the petition and it was improperly verified. Later the husband filed an amended petition in proper form and the Board permitted its filing. The wife also filed an amended petition in proper form and it was given a separate docket number, but the Commissioner moved to dismiss on the ground that it was filed more than 90 days after the mailing of the deficiency notice. Held, the evidence establishes that the original joint petition was filed with the full authority of husband and…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Black:
This report deals with a motion filed by respondent to dismiss the amended petition of Ethel Weisser filed February 23. 1935. The grounds stated in respondent’s motion are as follows: “ In support of his motion the respondent represents that as this *756taxpayer did not sign or verify the petition filed on December 15, 1934, and no authority has been shown authorizing the one who did sign to bring an appeal for this taxpayer, the petition on February 23, 1935, must be regarded as the original petition of this taxpayer and this petition was filed 159 days after the deficiency notice…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Brooks v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Carstenson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Babetta Schmidt v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Fletcher Plastics, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Schwartz v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.