Maggie P. Tookes v. Laurie W. Tomlinson, Individually & as Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue, 312 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Maggie P. Tookes v. Laurie W. Tomlinson, Individually & as Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue, 312 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Frank Miskovsky v. United States (ca3, 1969-08-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frank Miskovsky v. United States
3rd Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
See also Kisting v. Sauber, 325 F.2d 316 (7 Cir. 1963); Tookes v. Tomlinson, 312 F.2d 398, 399 (5 Cir. 1963); Amundson v. United States, 279 F.Supp. 779 (S.D.N.Y.1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maggie P. TOOKES, Appellant,
v.
Laurie W. TOMLINSON, Individually and as District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellee
19634_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1963.
312 F.2d 398
William R. Frazier, Jacksonville, Fla., Hill & Frazier, James P. Hill, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant., Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Michael A. Mulroney and David O. Walter, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Tuttle, Jones, Gewin.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue sought to protect its claim against the Estate of Bishop H. Y. Tookes, deceased, for income taxes of the decedent by a transferee assessment of something over $100,000 against the appellant, the widow of the deceased. In a suit brought by the holder of a mortgage given by the appellant, the District Director of Internal Revenue intervened. Upon foreclosure sale there was a realization of $2,-788.47 in excess of the amount payable to the holder of the mortgage. This amount was paid to the District Director and applied by him upon the transferee assessment. The appellant filed a claim for refund to contest the validity of the[*399] transferee assessment. The claim was rejected and suit was brought in the district court. The district court held that the suit could not be maintained for the refund of a partial payment of a tax assessment. The suit was dismissed.

It is here urged by the appellant that the facts here present take the case out of the rule announced in the Flora opinions. [1] We are in agreement with the district court that the Flora rule is applicable and controlling.

The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.