Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Phillips v. Commissioner

Phillips v. Comm’r, 178 F.2d 270 (3d Cir. 1949)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1949-12-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In these cases the petitioners seek to bring before us the effect of a closing agreement made between a taxpayer and the Commissioner. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3760. The agreement in these cases, however, was entered into between a corporate taxpayer and the Commissioner upon Form 866, which does not purport by its terms to settle anything more than the amount of taxpayer’s liability for a particular year or years. We see nothing to indicate that the use of this Form was accidental or that the taxpayer was misled by a revenue agent. Furthermore, it was a corporate taxpayer who was a party to the closing agreement.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Phillips v. Commissioner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
PHILLIPS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,178 F.2d 270(3rd Cir. 1949)
PHILLIPS et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and eight other cases.
Nos. 9969 to 9977.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued November 25, 1949.
Decided December 2, 1949.
Page 271
Sidney B. Gambill, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Rolland L. Ehrman, Butler, Pa., W.A. Seifert, William Wallace Booth, and Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for petitioners.

Hilbert P. Zarky, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. on the brief), for respondent.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In these cases the petitioners seek to bring before us the effect of a closing agreement made between a taxpayer and the Commissioner. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3760. The agreement in these cases, however, was entered into between a corporate taxpayer and the Commissioner upon Form 866, which does not purport by its terms to settle anything more than the amount of taxpayer's liability for a particular year or years. We see nothing to indicate that the use of this Form was accidental or that the taxpayer was misled by a revenue agent. Furthermore, it was a corporate taxpayer who was a party to the closing agreement. This litigation is between the Commissioner and shareholders of that corporate taxpayer. Even if the closing agreement, as executed, settled other facts than the amount of tax liability between the parties to the agreement, these petitioners are strangers to that agreement and we think are neither bound by it nor can they take advantage thereof.

The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.