Court Opinion

ID: 9450145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:36:36.934175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:10.146275
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority says this case does not come within section 223 of the Revenue Act of 1964, because there was no contest as to the years in question, nor had any liability been asserted for those years. I cannot agree to this.
Defendant had assessed a tax for 1942, the year before the years in question. Plaintiff’s liability therefor was being contested in the District Court. The law and the facts applicable to plaintiff’s liability for 1942 were the same as in subsequent years. So, when the Revenue Agent’s report came in asserting a liability for the subsequent years on a basis the same as for 1942, the Bureau in Washington notified the taxpayer it would defer issuing a deficiency notice until after termination of the litigation as to 1942. When the District Court decided the case adversely to plaintiff, the Bureau still withheld the deficiency notice, because plaintiff had taken an appeal from the District Court’s decision.
Under these circumstances plaintiff made the payments in question.
Had the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, can it be questioned that the Bureau would have issued the deficiency notice? The basis for such a notice, I reiterate, would have been the same as the basis for the 1942 assessment.
What is lacking to bring the ease within section 223? Only a formal notice of a deficiency. The statute does not require this. For this court to do so is to do like the Pharisees of old who tithed mint and anise and cummin, and neglected justice and mercy and the love of God.