Accessories Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner
ACCESSORIES MANUFACTURING CO., <emphasis typestyle="it">v.</emphasis> COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Love:
The petitioner herein, referring to the letter advising the taxpayer of the determination of the deficiency appealed from, states:
(2) The deficiency letter (a copy of which is attached) was mailed to the said taxpayer on March 5, 1925.
The respondent’s answer admits the allegation contained in the said paragraph (2).
The original petition was filed with the Board on Tuesday. May 5, 1925, which was 61 days after the mailing of the deficiency letter. This computation of time is in accordance with the Board’s decision in United Telephone Co., 1 B. T. A. 450.
The respondent answered the petition on the merits, and hearing thereon has been had without any issue being raised as to the Board’s jurisdiction in the respect now under consideration.
We held in Sam Satovsky, 1 B. T. A. 22, that the Board was without jurisdiction of an appeal filed subsequent to the expiration of 60 days after mailing of a deficiency notice. See also B. B. Davis & Co., 1 B. T. A. 587; William Frantze & Co., 1 B. T. A 26; Hurst, Anthony & Watkins, 1 B. T. A. 26; and Belmont Smokeless Goal Go. v. Board of Tax Appeals, decided by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, December 22, 1925.
In Alfred G. Ruby, 2 B. T. A. 377, we held that jurisdiction can not be conferred on the Board by consent or estoppel where it does not exist by statute. See also Mohawk Glove Corporation, 2 B. T. A. 1247; and United Paper Co., 4 B. T. A. 257.
The instant case, and all of the decisions above cited, are controlled by section 274 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1924. There is nothing in the Revenue Act of 1926 which affects our determination herein. United Paper Co., supra.
*468 In accordance herewith, this appeal is dismissed' for lack of jurisdiction.
Order of dismissal will be entered accordingly.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
ACCESSORIES MANUFACTURING CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
Accessories Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 3979.
United States Board of Tax Appeals 12 B.T.A. 467 ; 1928 BTA LEXIS 3537 ; June 7, 1928 , Promulgated *3537 Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Gerald G. Barry, Esq., for the petitioner.
James W. O'Callaghan, Esq., for the respondent.
LOVE *467 LOVE: The petitioner herein, referring to the letter advising the taxpayer of the determination of the deficiency appealed from, states:
(2) The deficiency letter (a copy of which is attached) was mailed to the said taxpayer on March 5, 1925.
The respondent's answer admits the allegation contained in the said paragraph (2).
The original petition was filed with the Board on Tuesday, May 5, 1925, which was 61 days after the mailing of the deficiency letter. This computation of time is in accordance with the Board's decision in .
The respondent answered the petition on the merits, and hearing thereon has been had without any issue being raised as to the Board's jurisdiction in the respect now under consideration.
We held in , that the Board was without jurisdiction of an appeal filed subsequent to the expiration of 60 days after mailing of a deficiency notice. See also *3538 ; ; ; and Belmont Smokeless Coal Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals, decided by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, December 22, 1925.
In , we held that jurisdiction can not be conferred on the Board by consent or estoppel where it does not exist by statute. See also ; and .
The instant case, and all of the decisions above cited, are controlled by section 274(a) of the Revenue Act of 1924. There is nothing in the Revenue Act of 1926 which affects our determination herein.
*468 In accordance herewith, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Order of dismissal will be entered accordingly.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.