Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co.

HICK- MOORMAN, Before HICKS ENLOOPER, Judges. Circuit Judge. MOORMAN, Circuit review decisions of the Board Petitions to Liberty Appeals by taxpayer, the of Tax Company, in No. Bank & the Commissioner No. 5780. petitioner in No. 5867 contends that Kentucky Wagon owing debts to it Manufacturing Company and the Wolko Company were recoverable Lead Batteries only on December and that therefor have allowed deductions should been gross year 1921 income for the dis $175,000. The Commissioner sum of deductions, and the allowed the ruling upon sustained his ground art indebtedness taxpayer during charged off ruling year. The of the Board the taxable 234(a) (5) on section of the Rev was based 254), 1921 (42 Act of enue taxpayer shall be provides that the allowed deductions “debts ascertained to worth be charged year off taxable less (or in the discretion addition to a reserve for bad reasonable debts); and when satisfied that a debt is part, recoverable charged may allow such debt off pari.” This statute deals two classes of wholly Those that have debts: become worthless, part. and those recoverable provision for It makes deduction of each gross income, providing as to the first that, “ascertained be worthless when provision to deductions for “debts ascer off” is same § tained to be worthless Ill OKENLOOPER, Judge, Circuit dis- Act of found in provision senting. (5), (a) since which deductions act, however, allowed. That did not have to reserve bad debts nor for addition vide charge part of a off of the unrecoverable debt. provided Theso were first for in Revenue Act Building Co., Leasing “shall & therefor charged off,” a deduction petitions (6 A.), second, F.(2d) C. in which allowed”; C. and as to only in in behalf of review de is recoverable the Commissioner to debt “satisfied that a debt cisions of the of Tax allow such part the -Commissioner Among accepted question.2 part.” allowance without The to off .be these eases from each the depends performance on the are decisions as to each class of which Appeals, in the Circuit Courts of some precedent or acts. Those of a act Court, Supreme were and of worthlessness reviewed tbe the ascertainment first are by in of the charging off, power be done none of them was which must the the and Cir course,.to review cuit Court of review decision subject, tbe to taxpayer, the upon petition Tax Appeals the Board of reasonableness tbe Commissioner the Bryan questioned v. of & the Commissioner ever Sherman ascertainment. of the 713; thought F.(2d) to he A.) 35 doubt. Blair, (C. C. Comm. (6 F.(2d) 695 C. Commissioner, 47 Deeds v. here- Whatever assumed have been precedent, other class the A.). C. the tofore, is, however, unless a true by the Commissioner. performed be must act against government by decision the tbe Board recov a debt is must “satisfied He Appeals presents or contro- Tax a “case is, and, there until he part,” erable versy” judiciary article, tbe there within his then off, and charge can be no no of review constitutional court. power in a taxpayer being under The permission. statutory inquire therefore, func- We into the until charge in this class make off -duty to Board, which, pointed out tions of the done, it it to be permits Commissioner ( Commissioner, 279 Colony Trust v. Old Co. have give him a is sufficient 502, 73 L. U. his claim ruling reviewed that Commissioner’s established Act was rejected. charge was made and off that Act (43 253). of 1924 Under dis presented were case claims In this duty Board to it became" tbe hear by the the disallowances Whether allowed. reported by and decide whether deficiencies of tbe failure because were Commissioner rightly determined. were Commissioner part charge the debts in off that, if the Board provided act was discre exercise of the made in the deficiency, the amount there was a determined has does Commissioner tion paid should be assessed so determined Commissioner, 42 v. appear. See Stranahan collector, tbe upon notice demand from A.) as extent (6 729 C. to the F.(2d) C. Angier Corpora Commissioner v. 2First Circuit: Tax The of discretion. F.(2d) 887; Old R. tion, Colony Commissioner v. 50 based said, F.(2d) Co., 896. 50 Estate, Blair Dustin’s F. 30 Second Circuit: v. taxpayer- charge off the failure (2d) Adolph Co., Hirsch & 774; Commissioner v. part. think it debts We should have F.(2d) City 645; Works, Button Commissioner v. 30 F.(2d) F.(2d) Field, 42 705; Commissioner considered and determined the Com v. whether 49 F.(2d) 79; Com- Godfrey, v. 50 820; Commissioner abused his discretion in not al missioner lowing F.(2d) Gong Mfg. 205; 48 Co., Bell v. missioner charge to be offs made. F.(2d) 463; Co., v. New 54 Commissioner York Trust F.(2d) Remington Inc., Commissioner, 33 Rand, v. 77. in case Ho. 5780 is initial F.(2d) Hanlon, 51 Fourth Circuit: Burnet 453. v. power F.(2d) 257; court has Stewart, Blair Fifth v. 49 Circuit: F.(2d) 806; Hunt, 50 Lucas v. Baucum, Lucas v. questions present hear and determine the F.(2d) 781; 45 Lucas v. Colmer-Green Lumber Commissioner. ed (2d) 49 234. F. Langwell power said is no because that'there Circuit: Commissioner v. Real Seventh F.(2d) 841; Commissioner Corp., Estate 47 v. Mc is no “ease or there F.(2d) 277, on merits Cormick, 43 reversed ineaning 2 of article 3 of the Con Court, 283 51 75 Wright, F.(2d) 47 1413; Commissioner v. theory of that is that stitution. view 871. Board of an executive F.(2d) Eighth Byers, 326; Blair 35 v. Circuit: F.(2d) 14; government tribunal or administrative Jones, 50 Burnet v. McDon Burnet v. F.(2d) ough, 944; Commissioner, Burnet v. Mors 46 superior authority to the Commissioner (reversed F.(2d) merits, 902 283 44 man, Revenue, Internal when the Board 1412); 75 Lucas 783, 51 S. Ct. v. St. F.(2d) Club, Baseball 42 984. favorably ap National .on its Louis acted F.(2d) Roth, 22 Blair v. Bur Circuit: Ninth deficiency from the assessment there was peal F.(2d) 629; 46 Italy, Burnet net Bank of v. First v. high F.(2d) an accord between Fresno, 46 Burnet v. Nat. Bank of North F.(2d) 752; Consolidated, Burnet Oil 50 American body, and no est administrative Savings F.(2d) & Bank, 45 Pacific S. v. 773; W. noted in is to be connection with remained. It & Joaquin v. San Fruit Investment Burnet F.(2d) F.(2d) Garber, thirty-five 123; Commissioner there are re this contention F.(2d) n Hind, 1075. 588; Commissioner eases, among them Commissioner v. ported F.(2d) Moore, 48 Tenth Commissioner Circuit: F.(2d) (6 A.), C. Bingham, C. And tho deficiency tween assessed and no represented by tho disallowed as such Commissioner hut by statutory designation there could assessed. The government’s rep after continues as the notwithstand- however, given bring Board, prosecute from ad resentative to its claims ing the decision of the taxpayer to against veráis decisions of the Board. 26 USCA suit in deficiency 1224(a). difference between § collect as Board. and that allowed his assessment It makes no difference F.(2d) Co., 42 Cleveland United States v. See is an tribunal. executive Act of (6 A.). C. C. The Revenue involving public There are certain matters original juris- enlarged (44 9) rights legislative exec-' which “admit of deficiencies Board to consider diction yet determination, utive their nature beyond in the shown Commissioner’s those susceptible by are determination courts.” of claim there- made if the Commissioner notice Murray’s Den ex dem. Hoboken Lessee v. pro- hearing. It further tbe or before for at Improvement Co., 272, 284, Land & 18 How. judicial the of direct review vided L. 372; Fong Ting 15 Ed. United Yue by filing the either decision the Board’s 1036, States, 714, 698, 149 U. S. 13 S. Ct. taxpayer of tho or Commissioner Ed. 905; Corpora 37 L. Ex Parte Bakelite statutory full review. Thus there is for authority 279 438, 451, 411, 49 tion, U. S. S. 73 Ct. under review here consid- for the determining Ed. L. 789. mode mat Tho of it is eration, question sole completely ters of this class is con within Congress confer power of to within the gressional Congress may control. reserve the authority upon the courts. may delegate power itself, to it to executive depend seem question judicial or officials, would commit it tribu “author supra. States’ upon is United Ex Corporation, the nals. Parte first who Bakelite Cor the representative” “its Tho latter course adopted ized official” pay asserting right to tho its of constitutional courts in matters which take purpose rep If the is such judicial power capable tax. Board of such form tho is ment the course, resentative, is, no contro acting of upon power there them. capable of That is government acting versy parties the when between there are whose ad has detei mination Board made a the are after verse contentions submitted to the court taxpayer. sole proscribed by But the law, favor of the the form in and where the in review of the Board “consists advisory determination neither function involves nor Ry. Com appeal, determinations the executive action. In ing, on re Pacific Commission (C C.) 32 the revenue laws.” F. missioner under Osborn v. . United collection of taxes Bank of States, 9 concerned the Wheat. not Ed. pa-ssing upon Internal part of the Bureau of 204. “is not a In matters such are in independent agency Revenue,” case; but is “an volved in the Board exercises func * k* gov ‘in executive branch tions similar those a trial exercised court ” Williamsport Rope jury. Phillips Wire ernment.’ Co. v. in a. law case without a States, 551, 564, 277 283 U. S. 48 U. S. 51 United S. L. 587, 591, 72 75 Ed. 1289. opinion, While it is Ct. L. our they susceptible judicial aro court is an executive or matters not a administra de board, “appel reargumont nevertheless Tho tive exercises termination. order Colony powers which are Old Trust Co. Case, supra, late character.” the things, recited, among United States Board of Tax other Goldsmith court especially desired assistance counsel respect Blair v. question: Oesterlein to the L. Mach. “Was there Congress power to confer Appeals the other Circuit Court to review “general hand, superintendence has Appeals?” Board of Tax action limited and collection of all was not reviews duties and The at imposed by any providing taxpayer, law holding' internal instance and in taxes USCA, designated 2. He is revenue.” existed § case then represent government consideration the said: “In here, the Board and there party before is a case are to the adverse tho ceeding Thus, before it. The United its authorized parties. payment by before to tho seeks review asserts of a de official assessment, ficiency controversy gov- a tax from him be due scope of resisting controversy within the case or taxpayer is eminent, and the judiciary judicial power what he the as defined seeking recover payment or is Colony Trust Com- citing law Old already paid taxes when article” — case pany supra. in that Case, makes case Nowhere That properly due. were not Colony Company disposition Case nor in the Old controversy, any the appear judicial power.” controversy exercise of it controversy judiciary article less a Tax Board of that ease It is true though petition to taxpayer, for the decided had not filed the Board of Tax Board is already out, but, pointed represent- through its official func- United States “independent agency” whose sole an There taxpayer. appeal, de- ative rather than reviewing, on “consists tion being in this case between terminations government as to the with the laws.” revenue through but of its authorized collecting taxes assessing duty collect, tax, representative assess and the tax- deciding between controversies Appeals being in- representative of and an payer and the authorized dependent agency In- ac- set to review the up government, making tion of the Commissioner in position ternal Revenue. The Ap- why a assessment, of no reason Board see of. analogous (26 10, 1890 decision the Board adverse to Com- the Act of June praisers under of present not a ease gave the collector missioner’s contention does 131), That act Treasury controversy taxpayer and the Secretary between the of the customs judiciary scope of the decision of the right to have the right accordingly hold that the review- article. We certain matters as to Appraisers never exists in this court to review the was in the Circuit Court. ed upon arising petition of the Board of the Com- suggested in of the eases missioner. Appraisers when that act import- in favor of the such matters decided 1919, inclusive, In its returns for 1916 to cognizable er, remained there taxpayer reported off cer- charged and Klingenberg, courts. United States for the tain debts as worthless. Due allowances 790, 38 93, 14 S. Ct. L. S.U. for were made these debts Commis- 16, 18 169 U. S. Passavant, States v. United in sioner the assessment of taxes for those States v. 219, 42 L. United S. years. payment of in Upon the the debts 780; 42 628, 636, 18 170 U. S. Lies, part in in 1920 whole or and Commissioner treated the amounts received part gross The Board of income. Radio questions in Federal involved The ruling, holding reversed this Co., 281 U. Electric v. General Commission dissents, pay- these to which there were (cid:127) L. Ed. 464, 50 S. Ct. for part gross not income ments were and, administrative,” while the “purely were they years received because were not such could not review held that years ascertained to be worthless for the fact pointed out that it nevertheless questions, they charged reported for which were so and under consideration proceedings there theory opinion proceeded on the off. The wholly proceedings under unlike were al- claiming mistakes made in and that the petition for the of 1926 “on a Act lowing years could prior the deductions for Board of Tax a decision of the by crediting the amounts be corrected not saying: “For, Appeals,” as this court here year of collection. pointed (a) income out, collected to tofore such taxpay- brings reviewing before the court the United contends that The Commissioner representative its on the one hand for having States or its returns er, asserted in other, the interested years and debts were ascertained former to be worthless presents charged having for consideration either the (b) off, and payment the United assertion, now the benefit received from the tax prejudice tax claimed be due estopped deny truth to the contends, his refunded to him payer to have government. The satisfy money a tax ease do not call paid first, he has the faets of the whieh equitable estoppel; application of erroneously claimed have they second, did, if the debts and, even against him, (c) calls for a income, not were pre so collected were binding matter determination capital. return proceeding makes the of whieh sented—all payment chargeable duty of of the debts were that it was the is said gross years they income allowing for the which the deductions Commissioner, before point were received. On this reasonable the ease years, to exercise in the former us, by principles it seems to controlled, were the debts diligence to discover so, he could announced Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks done worthless, and he had Co., 282 not. 51 S. Ct. they were While ascertained where a sustained losses on a that the Commissioner conceded from, every contract which wore deducted income accept statement blindly may not year fact, which were sustained. to a taxpayer makes as which a subsequently recovered, These losses taxpayer from were preclude the acting-thereon recovery the court held the state that the showing at some other time gross received, income when mistakenly cannot assent notwithstand made, we ment was ing it “equalled, and in a loose sense was view that of, expenditures performing return made in debt, on its state for a allowed a deduction Depart contract.” This has been as accords with the debt under oath that the ment interpretation ment’s estopped worthless, not statutes. certained to be regulations promulgated truth of denying thereafter (a) and section 233(a) of the Revenue prejudice government. Act statement to the tha,t (42 of 1921 necessity 254) provide and must debts, charged bad off because rely largely representations of the upon the determined to be worthless, which subsequently are estop the re taxpayer, and, order to tax covered, constitute contrary income for the payer assuming year he position, regulations recovered. Like suspicion compelled io look with promulgated under corresponding provisions examine, representations himself all of the Revenue Acts (39 con examined, the financial or cause to be 756; 40 1057), taxpayer’s debtors. It is and dition all with these of regulations earlier Congress fairly and effect duty taxpayer deal of enacted 213(a) sections 233(a) government. tax and of truthfully Act of 1921 in position substantially in a better payer in this case was the same lan guage debts as the earlier acts. ascertain facts to the value The same lan guage government, incorporated and was owing than was into to it the succeed by ing Revenue say government, 1924, 1926, Acts of it now that the cannot and 1928. care, ought to must be taken as settled the exercise of reasonable cognizant was interpretation have done it failed to what do. The officers Treasury Department government charged put had on duty Revenue Acts of 1916 assessing collecting and and yet, taxes have the with that interpretation duty, extant, to assume that a dowill his visions presumed applied think is to which it it to be re-ena.cted in 1921. If interpretation fact had not that these deductions were allowed been for consonant Congress, with the intent of years in which were claimed it suppose reasonable to that it would have mod taxpayer’s the Commissioner relied ified this construction in the act or in sworn statements that the debts were worth the later Copper Queen acts. Mining Consol. presumed, less. It is also to he in the ab Co. v. Territorial Equalization Board of contrary sence of evidence to the Arizona, 206 prejudiced reliance, Heiner v. Colonial Trust Co., 275 for it is obvious that a deduction from U. 72 L. Ed. 256. In view gross income reduces subject the net income of Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks supra, purpose taxation. The which the statute we hold it is permissible under the Six has in authorizing view in deductions for bad teenth gross Amendment to credit to income permit debts is to to reduce the recoveries debts for which deductions his taxable income. It fair to infer from years. were allowed in former the fact that deductions wore claimed and The orders in both cases are reversed and allowed for these debts in former years, the causes remanded for further proceedings nothing appearing, else there was a opinion. consistent with this consequent reduction in taxable income. HICKENLOOPER, Judge Even Circuit (dis- if the estopped senting). asserting that there was -no ascertain ment of worthlessness for the former years, so far foregoing opinion as the recog- opinion we are of that the amounts received nizes affirms in Circuit Courts and has set aside the assessment of the Com- jurisdiction of a entertain Appeals .of pay Thereby obligation to missioner? Board of a decision to review created —no of tbe tax been Appeals when filed surviving is dispute to remains. The Revenue, amI constrained of Internal general one between executives in the same to find proceeding I fail dissent. In such necessary government, the as a branch of the the .“case deficiency should consti- who maintains that judicial action foundation of Ap- assessed, of Tax and the Board that counsel court. true tutional superior, held argue peals, his administrative this consti- taxpayer refused to not have been. The although requested so to it' should question, tutional merely juris- spectator an interested has become court, openly conceded do dispute unlikely executives as at- between diction, is thus duties; proper performance of and he bring question to their made to tempt will be interested, pecuniary his af- de- is not because Supreme Court attention directly hut, involved, in- fairs are then is therefore but cision, this dissent and that existing obligated directly, because then act; feel I nevertheless vain ultimately in ac- long determined I have en- views which express the with the contentions of the sub- expression which cordance tertained, for the hut as- official, a tax thereafter be Per- ordinate necessity heretofore arisen.3 has not . dis- of such may deem sessed. The settlement official counsel other case haps in some worthy being putes in the brought to the federal constitutional courts question precedent. wholly without Supreme I feel Court, where notice controlling final con- receive should There be no that the Board sideration. of Tax is an admin- executive or government. istrative tribunal of the Appeals is a con “The Circuit Court language independent agency is “an the act the definition stitutional government.” the executive branch Case, given in the Bakelite such courts as Colony § USCA 1211. In the Old 438, 49 S. Ct. supra [279 Company. supra, controversy may Case, page 725 ease Ed. 789], it, Court it, provided neither before involves come advisory said: “The Board of Tax is not action it.” Old nor executive It is court. 279 U. an executive Colony Trust Co. board, .upon the decision 49 S. 716, 724, par- which the given opportunity ties an had are ease been assessed. In that tax to base a petition for review to had remedies the courts exhausted its after the ad- Tbe gov inquiry ministrative the of the branch of Board the administrative before only had decided.” The Except and unless the courts in function which ernment. the purely Board exercises tax, to be is administrative tervened, claimed the in character. Unless there has A first been collected. definite obli illegal, would be deficiency created, Commissioner, tbe pay already been gation bad jurisdiction. Board is was tbe without “ease or existence of a the [Jackson Iron & Steel Co. v. (page that 724 of 54 F.(2d) in the found fact 6)] ; only jurisdiction C. A. (C. 502): “In the we have ease 49 S. Ct. expressly conferred the Board parties. adverse The United law here, there are is “to tbe official asserts its redetermine correct or its authorized amount of the deficiency.” of a 26 USCA 1048c. payment § right government, and him to the due from tax both said It is that act and the Old payment resisting that or is is Colony Company (by quo- Case already paid has seeking to what he recover cited) here last contemplate tation that properly by law were not taxes shall remain the Commissioner “the author- due.” representative” of ized the United States presented its where, to assert claim the tax even after what situation re- But jurisdiction final the Board of Tax Appeals, versal here, tribunal government supe- the Board branch of the administrative due, independent an rior of the but has declared no tax spoken, has exercising judicial quasi judicial or tribunal unnecessary ques- thought tlie discuss It was appellate proceedings. powers Where the court affirmed de- where tion of cision pre- and In affirmed, of Tax action of Commissioner I court inclined to sat was the case vious wlúeh proper enough it is part, in whole or in 'upon petition by reverse the n - spokes- should remain the Commissioner. the recent decision of assert the oí the Court man due, as such Federal found hut Radio Commission v. General Elec to collect the sum merely govern- 461, 467, tric party. formal 50- he is representative might (the he where mental as well L. it was said any Treasurer, or, mine): other official italics are plain the colled “We think it Congress might designate for this pertinent parts whom care to resume of the of the act purpose. controversy powers A then that the ease confided to the commission that, respecting after granting But it would seem to me exists. and renewal of sta hy Board, purely administrative, reversal if such action is ad- tion licenses are judicial, provision appeals ministrative and not the Commis- to the Court repre- Appeals sioner be made the “authorized does no more than malee that of court a superior to continue revising agency sentative” the United States same, province the ease or in constitutional court’s field. provision essentially if of: courts the decision the Board prov its the same as Appeals directly upon legislation up not act re ince ato modify it; assessment, affirm, aside, permitted appeals set date cent from ad it is, only decision of the Board is ministrative decisions of Commissioner of merely advisory, original and tiro assessment Patents.” What is there said with reference force, unaffected continues in full to the Court of District of Perhaps Board’s “redetermination.” in that equal applies Columbia force to the gov- the administrative event branch Appeals. Board of Tax I see that cannot might asserting be said to be still questions ernment any there involved were more to tax and the of the Commis- “purely or less administrative” than those an sioner the nature of enforcement Appeals. decided the “Board of Tax Both right. of this are interested in the execution ad Congress. See, ministration of the acts of degree Conceding the fullest also, Butterworth v. rel. United States ex independence of the Board’s Hoe, 112 25, 28 Revenue and the Treasurer of of Internal States, the United it would seem clear to me merely advisory, that its function is not way Does affect the situation operates directly affirm, its decision upon, of Tax is called modify aside, or the assessment of the set performance of its administrative tax, deficiency correct that the amount judicial duties, quasi to exercise thereby “redetermined,” administratively functions? I think not. This is no more although may nothing, fixed at than has been done other administrative “agency that, being executive an boards, officers, and commissioners since the government” branch to very inception government; of our and since and revise the action of the Commis- early Ferreira, ease of United States v. general in the same branch, sioner 42, 14 L. How. Ed. even performing thus both administrative func- time, consisiontly has before that been rec- tions, the Board can be considered as ognized that neither the ad- this invalidates superior administrative the Com- action, constituting as in ministrative effect regard anything To missioner. as else delegation judicial powers to an a ex- anomaly an would be to introduce into our sense, officer,in the constitutional nor ecutive law, contrary and to run to principle power gives require con- to to powers division of of strict into legislative, courts to review the stitutional administra- executive, judicial. Nor recognize can I so reached. In tive decisions United States in any effect modification of function aris- supra, Ferreira, says, the court in eom- v. ing jurisdic- from ihe fact that the Board’s meniing upon the executive exercise of the very a is, sense, in true appellate; tion nor judicial powers function: “The conferred any force attribute whatever to the fact that by Congress upon judge these acts is not interested in the “collection” Secretary, are, true, judicial it is well as solely taxes. These to matters have do judgment nature. For in their and discre- powers a distribution of with administrative by must be exercised both of them. But tion. among officers, executive and do not affect nothing power ordinarily more than the. it is per- fundamental nature of the duties given appointed law to a commissioner to The test remains whether formed. the Board adjust money claims to lands or under a performs supervisory administrative func- treaty; special powers inquire to or into or tions. any particular other contro- decide class of just expressed supported by in which the individuals public The view versies or descrip- may power say suffice that, situation, A this as I view a be concerned. constitutionally petition may be conferred on a tion review the action of an adminis Secretary commission, well as on commissioner. trative board or cir noted, in cumstances judicial case, But in either here be classified is not must granted appeal either as an eourt sense in which constitutional in, a.part of, an administrative to the courts of the United Constitution ceeding, obtaining See, also, Michigan, or as a States.” Reetz v. means 390, advisory purely U. 47 L. S. Ct. constitutional courts S. declaratory 563; Tracy Commissioner, judgment may guide or F.(2d) v. present ,(C. 6). A. the administrative officers the then C. their No other future exercise of duties. spite independ- of its Thus see Under suggested. alternative departments, ence of other administrative view neither can this eourt be invested with judi- officers, bureaus, or and its exercise of jurisdiction. declaratory judgments, As to performance cial functions in particularly supra; see Muskrat v. U. imposed it, duties the Board of Grannis, 273 Liberty U. Warehouse Co. v. be considered as other than cannot 541; Willing 47 S. 71 L. Ed. S. Ct. agency, superior administrative an n Association, Chicago 277 U. Auditorium the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 48 S. As to wheth- question field. The the-same remains advisory judgments, difference true require Congress may er authorize af exists in connection review- of the United constitutional courts Hayburn’s fairs, Case, 409, 1 States, see 2 Dall. administrative action of Ferreira, United States v. Board, very where, action virtue of the 40, 14 completely un How. and a nulli- reviewed; pres lina of broken authorities down to obligation pay tax fied exists. and no appeals date. As to for administrative ent my-opinion, be answered must such, Radio Com purposes,, see Federal negative. a federal administra- Where supra; Co., Eleetric Pos mission General obligation pecuniary tive decision creates no Fig Nut tum Cereal Co. v. California appellant, Apon petitioner ;478 71 L. Ed. liti- no clear to a citizen and or denies Power Keller Potomac Electric consti- gant, protected in which he is supra . .States, no “ease tution or laws the United all sense the constitutional indication each my -between citizen fed- controlling authorities, opinion, exist as these government. opinion accept A difference of eral refuse to is that this eourt should may brought subor- jurisdiction between the citizen and a review exist superior officer, and between Internal Revenue. dinate federal Commissioner of officers, striking federal as to and subordinate at least a coincidence legisla- intent, scope, -brought Supreme and effect of three Court eases tlie tion, but (cid:127)this' not constitute “case notice which refer to or discuss the to our circumstances, appeal an controversy.” constitutionality Under or review of an given sought -of appeal administrative aetion federal language legislative courts, but, functioning or commission officer Court, field,4 courts “cannot legislative constitutional or administrative and here charac- comparable be invested of that fhe exactly purposes ter, other- Revenue, review or Internal Court provide Federal Gen- wise.” Radio Commission v. denied to Co., supra (page eral Electric 469 of such review federal courts created See, 390). Keller also, the Constitution. article Co., Ferreira, supra; Keller v. Potomac Electric Power 261 U. S. v. United 442-444, supra; S. Ct. Power Federal Potomac Electric States, 219 Electric v. United v. General Muskrat U. S. Radio Commission depart 55. Ed. see reason to from the supra. I so indicated. course good purpose No would be served re- viewing detail numerous decisions Klingenberg, Passavant, subject. upon this To do so would extend majority Lies, opinion, do not cited U. S. v. discuss beyond its dissent confines. should question. constitutional

Case Details

Case Name: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: May 12, 1932

Citation: 59 F.2d 320

Docket Number: 5780, 5867

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.