TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John N. Flood and Catherine Flood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

John N. FLOOD and Catherine Flood, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

Flood v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 468 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1972)
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
October 20, 1972
Docket
No. 71-1329
Judges
Duniway, Wright, Pregerson
Citations
468 F.2d 90430 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 56771972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7091

Opinion — Wright

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

The Tax Court denied petitioners’ request for special leave to file a motion to vacate two Tax Court decisions which had become final in 1962, seven years earlier. Dr. and Mrs. Flood had not appealed the 1962 decisions, which had been based on settlement stipulations signed by their attorney of record at that time. In their motion for special leave, they urged that their attorney had perpetrated a fraud upon the court by entering into the stipulations knowing that the petitioners did not owe the largest part of the taxes involved, and also that he signed them without authority.

The Tax Court granted petitioners a full and fair hearing on their claims. After giving careful consideration to the briefs and oral argument of petitioners, we conclude that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for special leave.

The stipulations upon which the Tax Court decisions were based were entered into by a lawyer to whom the Floods had *905 given a general power of attorney. The record of the most recent Tax Court hearing, from which this appeal is taken, demonstrates beyond question that petitioners were well represented in 1962 by skilled tax counsel, an expert in the field. Acting under a general power of attorney, he settled the tax claim against the Floods on the basis of a recent Supreme Court decision. Petitioners’ criticism of their former counsel is completely unwarranted.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11976: 11985: 11988: 11995: 22005: 119752026peak 1995 · 2

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