ROBERT MAYS, 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 held that the taxpayer failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the Commissioner's tax deficiency determinations.
The Commissioner assessed additional taxes against Mays for disallowing business expenses, a capital gains deduction, and including an annuity as inco…
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 Suit For Refund Of Federal Income Taxes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Robert Mays appeals from the district court’s judgment granting the United States summary judgment on his claim for a refund of federal income taxes. The question we must decide is whether Mays failed to present substantial evidence indicating that the tax deficiencies the Commissioner determined against him with respect to his returns for the years 1975, 1976, and 1977 were incorrect.
The Commissioner assessed an additional tax against Mays for the years in question after disallowing various business expenses and a capital gains deduction, and including a civil service annuity as income. In the proceedings below the government propounded interrogatories to Mays which he answered superficially. He included in his answer, for example, a computer printout purporting to summarize his alleged business expenses; the printout had been prepared after the audit of Mays’ returns had been completed, however, and did not constitute a business record kept contemporaneously with the transactions it reflected. After the government moved for summary judgment and the court gave him time to reply, Mays filed a “Demand for Speedy Jury Trial” and attached to his demand copies of “Net Worth Statements.” The district court, addressing the government’s motion for summary judgment, concluded that Mays had not rebutted the presumption of correctness due the Commissioner’s deficiency determinations and that Mays was entitled to no refund. The court therefore granted summary judgment.
On appeal, Mays contests the failure of the Commissioner to accord capital gains treatment to his 1976 sale of swine. He argues additionally that his “Net Worth Statements” should have been adequate to rebut the prima facie validity of the Commissioner’s determination that he owed additional taxes.
This court exercises an independent review of motions for summary judgment, and conclusions of law are subject to the same standard of appellate review as any question of law raised on appeal. Morrison v. Washington County, Alabama, 700 F. 2d 678, 682 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 195, 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983). Summary judgment should only be entered when the record, with all evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, demonstrates that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact in the case. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); National Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distribution Co., 748 F. 2d 602, 608 (11th Cir.1984).
In a tax refund suit, the Commissioner’s deficiency determinations are presumed correct, and the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the Commissioner’s findings were erroneous. Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 514-15, 55 S.Ct. 287, 290-91, 79 L.Ed. 623 (1935); Anselmo v. Commissioner, 757 F. 2d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir.1985). A taxpayer seeking a refund must show not only that the Commissioner erred, but must establish the correct amount of the refund due. King v. United States, 641 F. 2d 253, 259 (5th Cir. 1981) *; Crosby v. United States, 496 F. 2d 1384, 1390 (5th Cir.1974). The claim must be substantiated by something other than tax returns, Lunsford v. Commissioner, 212 F. 2d 878, 883 (5th Cir.1954), uncorroborated oral testimony, Griffin v. United States, 588 F. 2d 521, 530 (5th Cir.1979), or self-serving statements. See Gibson v. United States, 360 F. 2d 457, 462 (5th Cir.1966).
Mays does not dispute that the computer printout he submitted with his response to the government’s interrogatories was prepared after the tax audit; indeed, the “amount allowed by auditor” appeared on the face of the printout. His net worth statements did not refer to any original records, and he presented no contemporaneous documentation of his expenses or other evidence to establish that the Commissioner's tax assessment was wrong or to establish the correct amount due. In sum, Mays did not overcome the presumption of correctness due determinations of the Commissioner. Rather, he has submitted only self-serving documents which do not substantiate his claims. Accordingly, the government was entitled to summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
*
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buxton v. City OF Plant City, 871 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1989)…ounty, Georgia, 684 F. 2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir.1982). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same legal standards as those that control the district court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate. Mays v. United States, 763 F. 2d 1295, 1296 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 998, 106 S.Ct. 416, 88 L.Ed.2d 365 (1985). The party seeking summary judgment bears the exacting burden of demonstrating that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact in the case. Adickes v. S.H. Kr…
-
United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853 (11th Cir. 2018)…issue of material fact and preclude summary judgment even if it is self-serving and uncorroborated. And because this principle- applies in all civil cases, including those in the realm of tax law, we overrule that portion of Mays v. United States, 763 F. 2d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 1985), which is (or may be interpreted to be) to the contrary. I This case concerns IRS assessments, so we begin with some basic tax concepts. An assessment “amounts to an IRS determination that a taxpayer owes the [federal [govern…
-
Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Ga. Power Co., 844 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988)…ing the grant of appellees’ summary judgment motions, this court exercises independent judgment and makes its own assessment of the record as to whether there was a genuine dispute as to any material issue of fact in the case. Mays v. United States, 763 F. 2d 1295 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 998, 106 S.Ct. 416, 88 L.Ed.2d 365 (1985); Thrasher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 734 F. 2d 637 (11th Cir.1984). Even under this standard, however, we hold that the district court was correct in concl…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970)
- Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1935)
- Morrison v. Wash. Cnty., 700 F.2d 678 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Nat'l Indep. Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distrib. Co., 748 F.2d 602 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Griffin v. United States, 588 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Anselmo v. Commissioner, Internal Revenue, 757 F.2d 1208 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Mr. R. H. Crosby and Mrs. v. Ethel Crosby (Mrs. V. Ethel Crosby, 496 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Pringle, 212 F.2d 878 (4th Cir. 1954)
- Lunsford et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 212 F.2d 878 (5th Cir. 1954)