Louis D. Benn v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 394 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Louis D. Benn v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 394 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Durham Farms v. Commissioner (ca9, 2003-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Durham Farms v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Even then, the taxpayer must show that the tax court made “manifest errors of fact or law,” or if the taxpayer bases its motion on newly discovered evidence, it must show that the evidence “could not have been introduced before the filing of an opinion.” Id.; see also Benn v. Commissioner, 394 F.2d 505, 506 (5th Cir.1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Louis D. BENN, Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
23851_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 21, 1968.
394 F.2d 505
William H. Deck, John Glandon Davies, Washington, D. C., for petitioner., Lester R. Uretz, Chief Counsel, Eugene F. Colella, Atty., IRS, Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, John P. Burke, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Tuttle, Simpson, Brewster.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal raises only questions of fact relating to the correctness of the Tax Court’s determination of a substantial deficiency in petitioner’s income for the calendar years 1953 and 1955 and of the existence of fraud with intent to evade the tax as to a part of the deficiencies. We conclude that the Tax Court was fully warranted in resolving both of these issues against the taxpayer.

The petitioner urges that the Tax Court record is inadequate to show the full facts for the tax years involved, because his brother, James Benn, who had conducted most of the transactions for him, failed to appear as a witness at the hearing. He requests a remand for the purpose of eliciting additional proof by James. No such motion was made in the Tax Court during the months the case was under submission, and we conclude that the Tax Court did not err in refusing thereafter to reopen the proceedings.

The decision of the Tax Court is

Affirmed.