Court Opinion

ID: 9450082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:34:42.245157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:08.630576
License: Public Domain

SIMPSON, District Judge
(dissenting).
With deference to the views of the majority and to the theory skillfully developed in Parts I and II of Judge Brown’s Opinion that jurisdiction exists, I think that the District Judge, for the reasons set forth in his opinion (209 F.Supp. 530, at page 537) was correct in his determination that he was without power or authority to entertain this action with respect to the claims for the years 1953, 1955 and 1956.
I do so with deference also to Judge Hutcheson’s suggestion that a dissent will align me, not only with the District Judge and the tax-gatherers, but also with the scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites. (See, Matthew XXIII, 23-25).
If it is appropriate to cite Chapter and Verse, I suggest turning to Mark XII, 14-17, and the admonition of the 17th Verse, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (See also, Luke XX, 24-25.)
The tax-gatherers were omnipresent and omnivorous two thousand years ago, as they are now, and as little concerned with “weightier things of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.” (Matthew XXIII, 23, supra.)
Sadly, the taxpayers, for the years in question, never filed a refund claim. In my view, this is fatal to jurisdiction, as the Court below held.
I respectfully dissent.