Dixon v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Through inadvertence respondent failed to file his answer on the due date. Ten days later the error was discovered, and respondent then filed a motion for leave to file his answer out of time and lodged the answer with the Court. Petitioner has shown no irreparable harm or prejudice resulting from the delay. Held, that good and sufficient cause for the delay has been shown, and respondent's motion for leave to file his answer out of time will be granted.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Dawson, Judge:
On January 10, 1973, respondent sent the petitioner a timely statutory notice of deficiency, after making a jeopardy assessment, which determined Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax, as follows:
Aüdttion to tax see. 6658 (6),
Taxable year Deficiency I.R.G. 165h
1970 _$902, 679.29 $451,339. 65
1971_ 550,514.48 275,257.24
On March 30, 1973, the petition in this case was filed with the Court. Respondent’s answer was due on June 1,1973 (Rule 14(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice), but was not lodged with the Court until June 11, 1973, 10 days late. Respondent filed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Morris Newmark and Julia Newmark v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Board of Tax Appeals v. United States ex rel. Shults Bread Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1929
- Elias v. PitucciDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1952
- Teal v. King Farms Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
- Estate of Quirk v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Northville Dock Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Estate of Richardson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Vermouth v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Betz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.