Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robert E. Funkhouser and Eleanor E. Funkhouser v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 231 F.2d 657, 4th Cir. (1956)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The court denied the taxpayer's petition for rehearing regarding a tax court judgment. While the taxpayer alleged that approximately $32,000 collected under a jeopardy assessment was not properly credited, the court found this was not a mistake affecting the tax court's judgment. The IRS commissioner explained that some of the amount collected was used to pay interest owed by the taxpayer. The commissioner admitted an error of around $1,000 in interest computation and had tendered a refund to the taxpayer for that amount. As the jeopardy assessment credits did not impact the tax court's consent judgment, it did not justify rehearing the case. The taxpayer could still pursue remedies through separate suit or refund for any improperly uncredited amounts.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1956-04-09 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 231 F.2d 657 Docket: 7057

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court denied the taxpayer's petition for rehearing regarding a tax court judgment. While the taxpayer alleged that approximately $32,000 collected under a jeopardy assessment was not properly credited, the court found this was not a mistake affecting the tax court's judgment. The IRS commissioner explained that some of the amount collected was used to pay interest owed by the taxpayer. The commissioner admitted an error of around $1,000 in interest computation and had tendered a refund to the taxpayer for that amount. As the jeopardy assessment credits did not impact the tax court's consent judgment, it did not justify rehearing the case. The taxpayer could still pursue remedies through separate suit or refund for any improperly uncredited amounts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Robert E. Funkhouser and Eleanor E. Funkhouser v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 231 F.2d 657, 4th Cir. (1956)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court denied the taxpayer's petition for rehearing regarding a tax court judgment. While the taxpayer alleged that approximately $32,000 collected under a jeopardy assessment was not properly credited, the court found this was not a mistake affecting the tax court's judgment. The IRS commissioner explained that some of the amount collected was used to pay interest owed by the taxpayer. The commissioner admitted an error of around $1,000 in interest computation and had tendered a refund to the taxpayer for that amount. As the jeopardy assessment credits did not impact the tax court's consent judgment, it did not justify rehearing the case. The taxpayer could still pursue remedies through separate suit or refund for any improperly uncredited amounts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    231 F.

    2d 657
    56-1 USTC P 9453

    Robert E. FUNKHOUSER and Eleanor E. Funkhouser,


    Petitioners,
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
    No. 7057.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued March 21, 1956.
    Decided April 9, 1956.

    Robert E. Funkhouser, pro se.


    Walter Akerman, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice (Charles K. Rice, Acting Asst.
    Atty. Gen. Lee A. Jackson and A. F. Prescott, Attys., Dept. of Justice, on
    brief), for respondent.
    Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and BRYAN,
    District judge.
    PER CURIAM.

    A petition for rehearing filed in this case alleges that taxpayer had just
    discovered evidence to the effect that approximately $32,000 collected under a
    jeopardy assessment had not been properly credited on the judgment of the Tax
    Court. We ordered argument on the petition for the purpose of determining
    whether there was newly discovered evidence showing error or mistake
    entitling taxpayer to relief from the judgment appealed from, and whether the
    case should be remanded to the Tax Court for reconsideration in the light
    thereof. On the argument, it appears that, if there was mistake in crediting
    collections under the jeopardy assessment, this was not a mistake affecting the
    amount of the judgment from which appeal was taken. The Commissioner
    contends that the apparent discrepancy between the amount collected under the
    jeopardy assessment and the amount credited on the judgment is explained by
    the fact that part of the amount collected was used in the payment of interest for

    which taxpayer is liable but which is not dealt with in the judgment. The
    Commissioner admits, however, that there was an error in the computation of
    interest of approximately $1,000 for which he has tendered a refund to
    taxpayer.
    2

    As the crediting of collections under the jeopardy assessment is not a matter


    which could affect the amount of the consent judgment entered by the Tax
    Court, it is not a matter which would justify a rehearing of the cause. If
    taxpayer is entitled to any moneys collected under the jeopardy assessment
    which have not been properly credited against his tax liability, he has a remedy
    by suit therefor in a proper court, if they have not been refunded to him in the
    meantime.

    Rehearing denied.

    You might also like