SHARON FRANKLET, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; DINAH BACHRACH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; JOHN MCCHESNEY-YOUNG AND ANN L. MCCHESNEY-YOUNG, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; KOLYA M. BRAUN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; MARY MCKENNA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; JAMES T. AYERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; JUDITH L. KAPLAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; TIMOTHY A. PEARCE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; BETTY WINKLER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; PETER C. BREWER AND FAITH J. BREWER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; EUGENE A. WIENS, 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 court affirmed the district court's judgments in favor of the United States.
Appellants filed income tax returns claiming war tax credits or deductions for 1982. The IRS penalized them for filing frivolous returns under 26 U.S.…
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:
In these eleven cases, which were consolidated for this hearing, the appellants all filed income tax returns making claims for war tax credits or deductions. The Internal Revenue Service penalized the appellants for filing “frivolous” income tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 6702) for the year 1982. Appellants challenged the assessments in the District Court for the Northern District of California. Judgments in favor of the United States were entered in all cases. For the reasons stated in the opinion in Franklet v. United States, 578 F.Supp. 1552 (N.D.Cal.1984),1 we affirm the judgments.
We note that, since the decision in Franklet, similar results have been reached in Wall v. United States, 756 F. 2d 52 (8th Cir.1985); Kahn v. United States, 753 F. 2d 1208 (3d Cir.1985); and Welch v. United States, 750 F. 2d 1101 (1st Cir.1985). See also Jenney v. United States, 755 F. 2d 1384 (9th Cir.1985).
*
The Honorable Russell E. Smith, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
. One opinion was written to decide eight of the cases which had been consolidated. Another judge, relying on the opinion in Franklet, entered judgment in the three remaining cases, which also had been consolidated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnell R. Mattingly v. United States, 924 F.2d 785 (8th Cir. 1991)
-
Charles W. and Marlene D. Stelly v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 804 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1986)
-
E.H. Mosher, Sr. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 775 F.2d 1292 (5th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kahn v. United States, 753 F.2d 1208 (3d Cir. 1985)
- Welch v. United States, 750 F.2d 1101 (1st Cir. 1985)
- Jenney v. United States, 755 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1985)
- Wall v. United States, 756 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1985)