Court Opinion

ID: 8588828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 15:42:01.258997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:54:21.700726
License: Public Domain

Jones, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result, but for a different reason.
Plaintiff is endeavoring to escape the consequences of an illegal transaction, as disclosed by his own pleadings and the documentary evidence of record.
Since suits were filed by minority stockholders during the taxable year, 1922, the year of receipt, it is doubtful whether the taxpayer received the earnings “under a claim of right with full power of control and disposition.” The exercise of any such power over a portion, at least, of such funds was prevented by court order made in 1922.
Even conceding that the taxes were properly assessed in 1922, there is some question whether plaintiff might not have the right to a refund on the facts, later revealed, showing that he- did not own a certain percentage of the monies and notes that were received, but that such percentage actually belonged to the minority stockholders. On that percentage plaintiff had paid taxes on property that belonged not to him but to others.
. On account of the apparent fraud on the minority stockholders, with which plaintiff was intimately connected, or at least had knowledge and with such knowledge became, or was willing to become, the beneficiary, he is not equitably entitled to recover.
To avoid any possibility that a subsequent taxpayer with a just cause might be foreclosed on the other issues, I prefer to place the decision on the latter ground.
Plaintiff having sought to benefit from an illegal transaction may not now recover on the showing that his attempt failed.