Court Opinion

ID: 9446308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:51:57.664959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:36.685131
License: Public Domain

DIMOCK, District Judge
(dissenting in part).
I concur except that I would direct that the payments which accompanied the Newcombes’ income tax returns be set off against petitioner’s liability. A necessary part of the decision that the income was petitioner’s is that the brokerage accounts which earned it were petitioner’s. The payments which accompanied the Newcombes’ income tax returns went direct from those brokerage accounts to the United States Treasury. The Government is saying with one breath “the brokerage accounts were petitioner’s” and with the next “the money which went direct from those brokerage accounts to the Treasury was-the Newcombes’.” Unlike the cases of Meyers v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 331, and Masterson v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 315, cited in the majority opinion, no-question of reducing A’s liability by B’s payment is involved. The liability here was petitioner’s and the payments were petitioner’s. The Tax Court needs no equitable jurisdiction to determine the debits and credits in an account with a single taxpayer. In spite of the use of the Newcombes’ names petitioner should be given credit for the payments. Bailey v. United States, 104 F.Supp. 997, 122 Ct.Cl. 552.
The related taxpayer provisions, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1314, were required to deal with the case where the liability was-A’s but a tax had been paid by B. They would be important here only if the-Newcombes had actually paid petitioner’s-tax.
It is said that a determination that the payments were made by petitioner would not bind the Newcombes. Even so, that would not affect the Tax Court’s-jurisdiction to make the determination as between the Government and petitioner. From a practical standpoint the objection is just as insubstantial. If the Newcombes sought refund of the payments in some proceeding, the Government would be no more bound by our determination that the assessments-ought to have been against petitioner *94than the Newcombes would be bound by my proposed determination that the payment ought to be set off against petitioner’s liability. The burden would be upon the Newcombes to prove that the assessments ought to have been against petitioner. That could not be proved, however, without proving petitioner’s ownership of the brokerage accounts and consequent right to have the payments set off against her liability.