TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Royal E. Jorgensen and Mary M. Jorgensen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Royal E. JORGENSEN and Mary M. Jorgensen, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Jorgensen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 246 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 5, 1957
Docket
No. 15356_1
Judges
Healy, Fee, Murray
Citations
246 F.2d 53651 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 9281957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5028

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This case, here on appeal from the Tax Court, involves a deficiency in federal income taxes determined by the Commissioner for the calendar year 1952, On October 20, 1955, the Commissioner, by registered mail, sent to the taxpayers (petitioners here) a notice of deficiency. On January 23, 1956, the taxpayers filed a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination. That court dismissed the petition as untimely filed.

It appears that the postmark stamped on the envelope containing the petition was dated January 20, 1956, which was the 92nd day after the notice of deficiency had been mailed. January 23, 1956, was neither a Saturday, a Sunday, nor a holiday in the District of Columbia. The period prescribed by the statute, § 272(a) (1) of the 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 272 (a) (1), for the filing of a petition for redetermination, is 90 days. The filing was therefore untimely both under § 272, supra, and under the provisions of § 7502(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7502 (a).

In Di Prospero v. Commissioner, 176 F.2d 76, 77 , this court, in conformity with the general current of authority, held that the 90-day requirement prescribed by the Tax Court is jurisdictional. Accordingly, the dismissal below is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1958: 11960: 11964: 11965: 11978: 12022: 119582026peak 1958 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James E. Shipley and Patricia B. Shipley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue572 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1978)
  2. Heaberlin v. Commissioner34 T.C. 58 (Tax Ct. 1960)
  3. Bernard Bloch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue254 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1958)
  4. Edward J. Healy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue351 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1965)
  5. Tomie Kennedy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue339 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1964)
  6. Hallmark Research CollectiveNo. 21284-21 (Tax Ct. Nov. 29, 2022)

Most recent

  1. Hallmark Research CollectiveNo. 21284-21 (Tax Ct. Nov. 29, 2022)
  2. James E. Shipley and Patricia B. Shipley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue572 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1978)
  3. Edward J. Healy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue351 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1965)
  4. Tomie Kennedy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue339 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1964)
  5. Heaberlin v. Commissioner34 T.C. 58 (Tax Ct. 1960)
  6. Bernard Bloch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue254 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Di Prospero v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 176 F.2d 76 (9th Cir. 1949) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list