HENRY J. HORNE, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY J. HORNE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-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 District Court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction because the full tax assessment had not been paid and the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment.
Plaintiff filed an estate tax return, was notified of a deficiency, and then filed an amended return claiming a refund. He subsequently sued for the r…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Deficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Horne filed an estate tax return in June 1971. In February 1974 Horne was notified of a deficiency of $48,840.89 and one month later he filed an amended return claiming a refund of $1,330.88. The deficiency was assessed . on October 7, 1974 and Horne then brought suit in District Court seeking the refund and also requesting that the deficiency be declared void. The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Flora v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623, affirming, 1958, 357 U.S. 63, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165, established that the District Court has jurisdiction only if the full assessment has been paid. Although Flora concerned income tax, the statute construed, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(a)(1), applies to “any internal-revenue tax”, and Flora has been held applicable to an estate tax suit. West Chester Feed & Supply Co. v. Erwin, 6 Cir., 1971, 438 F. 2d 929, 930.
The instant case can best be analogized to Miskovsky v. United States, 3 Cir., 1969, 414 F. 2d 954, involving payment of gift taxes, in which the plaintiff attempted to amend his gift tax return after he received a deficiency notice. The amended return showed less tax due than the plaintiff had already paid and he brought suit in District Court for a refund. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 956.
Plaintiff Horne has attempted to do the same thing — amend his estate tax return after receipt of the deficiency notice to create a claim for a refund and thereby attempt to create jurisdiction in the District Court. This creative activity is no more legitimate here than it was in Miskovsky.
It is also well settled that a declaratory judgment cannot be issued in a tax case. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201; Hunsucker v. Phinney, 5 Cir., 1974, 497 F. 2d 29, 36, cert. denied, 420 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1124, 43 L.Ed.2d 397. As noted by the District Court, plaintiff’s request that the deficiency assessment be declared void is an attempt to have the Court issue a declaratory judgment.
Because the full estate tax assessment has not yet been paid and because the statute prohibits a declaratory judgment in a tax suit, the District Court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 698 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1982)
-
Grant v. United States, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2003)…assessment for the period has been paid. See Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 146, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960) (“full payment of the assessment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit” for a return); Horne v. United States, 519 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir.1975) (“The District Court has jurisdiction only if the full assessment has been paid.”). The Grants have not alleged that they have paid the full amount of the assessment against them. 2 Accordingly, the action for *1369 re…
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1960)
- Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1958)
- Pioneer Lumber Corp. v. Mays, 420 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1975)
- Wersetsky v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 420 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1975)
- Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Miskovsky v. United States, 414 F.2d 954 (3d Cir. 1969)
- W. Chester Feed & Supply Co., Inc. v. Erwin, 438 F.2d 929 (6th Cir. 1971)