TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Max Dritz as Administrator of the Estate of Max Dritz and of Helen Dritz, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Max DRITZ as Administrator of the Estate of Max Dritz and of Helen Dritz, Deceased, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

Dritz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 427 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 17, 1970
Docket
No. 28966
Judges
Coleman, Jones, Per Curiam, Wisdom
Citations
427 F.2d 117626 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 51841970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8651

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Largely because they failed to file federal income tax returns for the calendar years of 1962 and 1963, Max Dritz and his wife, Mrs. Helen Dritz, fell into a sea of difficulties with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with reference to tax liabilities for the years 1958 to 1963. They filed four petitions in the United States Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiencies asserted against them. The cases were consolidated. The liability of the taxpayers was determined in findings of fact and an opinion of the Tax Court issued on August 27, 1969.

1

The taxpayers produced no records or documentation as to their income for the years in suit. Max Dritz did not testify. Mrs. Dritz testified, but the Court found her testimony to be evasive, inconsistent, and generally implausible.

We are now asked to reverse the Tax Court on the argument that the determinations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were arbitrary, that this put the burden of proof as to the various issues on the Commissioner, and hence *1177 the Tax Court resolved the factual issues by the wrong standard.

This argument fails. In view of all the facts, as duly found and for which there is substantial support in the record, there is no basis for saying that the determinations of the Commissioner were arbitrary. Nor do we find any other basis for reversal.

The decision of the Tax Court is, on all issues, affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Paragraph 69, 175 P-H Memo TC.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1973: 11975: 11978: 11979: 21980: 31981: 31982: 21983: 21984: 11985: 21986: 11999: 12001: 12017: 12018: 12020: 119732026peak 1980 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tucker v. United States8 Cl. Ct. 575 (Ct. Cl. 1985)
  2. Ritchie N. Stevens & Julie A. Keen Stevens v. Commissioner2020 T.C. Memo. 118 (Tax Ct. 2020)
  3. Smith v. Commissioner1984 T.C. Memo. 114
  4. Thompson v. Commissioner78 T.C. No. 38
  5. Millette & Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue594 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1979)
  6. Philip S. Morgan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue807 F.2d 81 (6th Cir. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Ritchie N. Stevens & Julie A. Keen Stevens v. Commissioner2020 T.C. Memo. 118 (Tax Ct. 2020)
  2. James S. Plato v. Commissioner2018 T.C. Memo. 7
  3. Ruddy v. Comm'r2017 T.C. Memo. 39
  4. GENTRY v. COMMISSIONER2001 T.C. Memo. 295
  5. Martinez v. CIRNo. 98-60586 (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 1999)
  6. Philip S. Morgan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue807 F.2d 81 (6th Cir. 1986)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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