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
Edward F. Dixon, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Dixon v. Commissioner
Docket No. 2284-73
United States Tax Court
60 T.C. 802; 1973 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 69; 60 T.C. No. 83;
August 29, 1973, Filed
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…
2Cases cited9 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
- Dixon v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.