- 16 -
(7th Cir. 1969), and by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in United States v. Bolt, 375 F.2d 725 (6th Cir. 1967).
In Tyne v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-214, revd. 385 F.2d
40 (7th Cir. 1967), revd. on remand 409 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1969),
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit twice reversed and
remanded this Court’s decisions. Although the taxpayer did not
file an appeal bond to stay assessment during either of his
appeals, he filed a motion with the Court of Appeals, following
its second reversal and remand to this Court, seeking an order
directing the Commissioner to abate the assessment entered
against the taxpayer based upon this Court’s original decision.
The Court of Appeals denied the taxpayer’s motion,9 stating in
pertinent part:
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. On March 28, 1968, the tax court made
decisions on remand which did decrease the
deficiencies. We think that corresponding abatement of
the assessment was required at that time * * *.
Tyne v. Commissioner, 1969-2 USTC par. 9508, at 85,298.
9 The Court of Appeals acknowledged the Commissioner’s
concession that he would abate and refund to the taxpayer the
difference between the deficiency determined in this Court’s
original decision and the reduced deficiency determined in this
Court’s decision following the first remand.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011