Court Opinion

ID: 9443665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:26:56.550997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:33.837596
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion the case should be remanded to the Tax Court for rehearing in the light of its decision in Ford v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 387 (promulgated November 29, 1952).1
This decision in favor of the taxpayer was concurred in by a majority of the Judges of the Tax Court; three Judges dissented. It may fairly be said to bespeak an effort on the part of the Tax Court to settle the law in family partnership cases. The Ford decision takes on additional significance in view of the fact that it was a complete reversal of an earlier decision against the taxpayer by a single Judge of the Tax Court in a “Memorandum” decision on identical facts and with respect to the same partnership.2
Simple justice requires that the taxpayer in the instant case be afforded an opportunity to have his case decided by the *956Tax Court according to' the principles which it stated and applied in Ford v. Commissioner, supra. I am not impressed by the distinctions which the Commissioner asserts exist between the factual situation in the instant case and that in , the Ford case in the light of the Tax- Court’s disposition in the , latter. Uniformity in the administration of the tax laws is imperative. When we say that “Justice is Blind” we mean that Justice is even-handed and equally administered to all,' irrespective of any and all considerations.

. Tho decision of the Tax Court in the instant case was entered December 21, 1951. Moreover, it must be noted that this decision was by a single Judge of the Tax Court in a “Memorandum”. It was not, as was Ford v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 387, a “Regular” decision “Reviewed by the Court.”

. Moore, 1946, 7 T.C. 1250.