From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Blair

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
May 24, 1927
19 F.2d 789 (7th Cir. 1927)

Opinion

No. 3800.

May 24, 1927.

In Error to the United States Board of Tax Appeals.

The Reliance Manufacturing Company presented a petition for redetermination of a deficiency in the payment of income taxes to the United States Board of Tax Appeals, after David H. Blair, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, had notified him of the deficiency. The Board of Tax Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and petitioner brings error. Reversed and remanded, with direction.

The one question involved is on the action of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, dismissing, for "lack of jurisdiction," the petition of plaintiff in error for redetermination by the board of a deficiency in plaintiff in error's federal tax as determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. March 10, 1926, the Commissioner gave notice of his determination, and the statutory time within which petition for redetermination by the board must be filed expired May 10, 1926. Section 274, Revenue Act 1926 ( 44 Stat. 55). May 5 petition for redetermination was mailed at Chicago, and received at office of the Board of Tax Appeals at Washington the following day, and date of receipt indorsed thereon by the clerk of the board. The following May 12 the clerk mailed the petition to petitioner's attorney at Chicago, with statement that it was not filed because a $10 filing fee had not accompanied it; and on the same day the attorney remailed it to the clerk, with the $10 fee, and on the day following these were received at the clerk's office.

The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition for want of filing within 60 days; and plaintiff in error moved that the petition be filed nunc pro tunc as of May 6. The board's order of dismissal "for lack of jurisdiction" followed.

The statute authorized the board to make rules, and to require a fee of not more than $10 to be paid on filing of any such petition, and accordingly, after the enactment of the statute, and shortly before the Commissioner's said notice of determination, the board adopted its rule 7 (afterward rule 8) fixing the fee at $10, and providing that no petition shall be filed until the fee is paid, and prohibiting the antedating of a filing to a time prior to payment of the fee.

Herbert Mayer, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.

Leroy Hight, of Washington, D.C., for defendant in error.

Before ALSCHULER, EVAN A. EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


In the case of John H. Weaver v. David H. Blair, Commissioner, etc. (decided April 27, 1927) 19 F.2d 16, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit passed upon the identical question, holding that the time of the payment of the fee is not jurisdictional, but procedural, and that, where the petition for redetermination was presented to the board within the statutory time, the board is not without jurisdiction because the fee did not accompany the petition, and was not paid until some days after the statutory time for filing had expired, and directed the board to reinstate the petition and mark it filed as of the date when it first reached the board, and proceed to its determination.

Concurring fully in the views there expressed, the order herein of the United States Board of Tax Appeals is reversed, and the cause remanded to the board, with direction to reinstate the petition and to indorse it, or have it indorsed, as filed with the board May 6, 1926, and thereupon to proceed with the redetermination of the plaintiff in error's alleged deficiency of its tax.


Summaries of

Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Blair

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
May 24, 1927
19 F.2d 789 (7th Cir. 1927)
Case details for

Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Blair

Case Details

Full title:RELIANCE MFG. CO. v. BLAIR, Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: May 24, 1927

Citations

19 F.2d 789 (7th Cir. 1927)

Citing Cases

United States v. Barber

It is apparent that the question as to whether the petition was or was not filed in time may raise either a…

Marzall v. Libby, McNeill Libby

But two rules are pertinent: Compare Weaver v. Blair, 3 Cir., 19 F.2d 16; Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Blair, 7 Cir.,…