Court Opinion

ID: 9446693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:16:24.900633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:44.900942
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I am in full agreement with the contention of appellants in their suit for refund of the civil tax fraud penalty asserted and paid for the year 1946, that the burden of proof is on the defendant to maintain the correctness of the exaction.1
I disagree, however, with their contention that defendant did not sustain the burden, and with the view of the majority that the district judge was under a misapprehension as to where the burden of proof lay, and, therefore, decided the case on the incorrect theory that to prove the wrongfulness of the exaction, that is to show the lack of fraud, was upon the plaintiffs. I disagree, too, with the view of the majority that the findings were not sufficiently definite to support the judgment and that the judgment should be reversed. In short, it seems to me upon the record that the findings were adequate and the record supports the findings, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

. Decker v. Korth, 10 Cir., 21.9 F.2d 732; Jemison v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 45 F.2d 4; Ohlinger v. United States. 9 Cir., 219 F.2d 310; Olinger v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 234 F.2d 823; F. Vitelli & Son v. United States, 250 U. S. 355, 39 S.Ct. 544, 63 L.Ed. 1028.