KENNETH T. JONES, JR., AND HARRIET JONES, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE W. INGLING, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AND TAXATION, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellants were entitled to relief similar to that recognized in Bromberg v. Ingling, even if not specifically demanded, and should have been given an opportunity to amend their petition.
Appellants appealed a district court judgment dismissing their petition for redetermination of income tax liability. The assessment was made simultane…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants have taken this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1294, from a judgment, of the District Court of Guam dismissing their petition for redetermination of income tax liability. Upon this appeal appellee has persuasively argued that under the laws then in force appellants were not entitled to a redetermination of' tax liability; that their only remedy was. to pay and sue to recover the payment..
Since filing of the briefs herein,, this court has held that a Guam income-tax assessment made simultaneously-with the announcement of the deficiency-was not a valid assessment since the-ninety-day notice of assessment had not been given as provided by law. Bromberg v. Ingling, 9 Cir., February 23, 1962, 300 F. 2d 859.
The assessment in the instant case is-subject to the same deficiency.
Appellee protests that in Bromberg the taxpayer had sued to enjoin collection of the tax in question while here-they have simply sought redetermination, to which, in any event, they are not entitled. Under Rule 54(c) F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., however, appellants were entitled to such relief as the Bromberg ruling recognized, whether specifically demanded or not, and at the least were entitled to an opportunity to amend to seek such relief.
Reversed and remanded for further-proceedings consistent with this opinion.