- 8 -
Court of Appeals again reversed and remanded for additional
hearings. See Tyne v. Commissioner, 409 F.2d 485 (7th Cir.
1969). The taxpayer then filed a motion with the Court of
Appeals for relief under section 7486, seeking a refund and an
abatement. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, stating:
Although it is arguable logic that the reversal of
the decisions which were the foundations of the
assessments compelled abatement, we consider it a
better construction of 26 U.S.C. � 7486 that reversal
with remand for further proceedings, as distinguished
from reversal and final disallowance of deficiencies,
did not require abatement until action of the tax court
upon remand. * * * [Tyne v. Commissioner, 69-2 USTC
par. 9508 (7th Cir. 1969).]
The Court of Appeals thus held that any abatement and refund
would depend on further decision by the Tax Court. See id.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reached the same
conclusion in United States v. Bolt, 375 F.2d 725 (6th Cir.
1967). The Tax Court had originally found the taxpayer liable
for income tax deficiencies and fraud penalties. See Grubb v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1961-153. The taxpayer appealed but did
not post a bond, and the Commissioner assessed the deficiency and
penalties. The Court of Appeals upheld the Tax Court’s finding
of fraud but reversed and remanded with instructions outlining
the appropriate method for determining the deficiency amount.
See Grubb v. Commissioner, 315 F.2d 753, 758-759 (6th Cir. 1963).
Based on stipulations by the parties, the Tax Court then entered
a new decision as to the correct amount of the deficiencies and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011