HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
KEHOE
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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue sought to set aside a 1928 closing agreement with taxpayer Kehoe by making a deficiency assessment in 1932 based on alleged fraud, which the Board of Tax Appeals upheld but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed for lack of substantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that when the Board of Tax Appeals finds substantial evidence of fraud affecting a closing agreement, courts reviewing the Board's decision must accept that factual finding rather than substituting their own judgment, and therefore reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and affirmed the Board.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Kehoe, in 1926, made an income tax return for 1925 and paid the amount computed thereon. In 1927, after inquiry concerning his affairs, the Commissioner assessed and; collected an additional sum. Respondent waived appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals and became party to a closing agreement under § 1106 (b) Revenue Act 1926,1 approved by the Secretary of the Treasury January 27, 1928.
In 1932 the Commissioner undertook to set aside this agreement and made a deficiency assessment of more than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars, also a fifty per cent-penalty. Respondent appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals where he maintained there was no adequate proof to support the assessment. The Board held the Commissioner had adequately sustained the burden of showing fraud or malfeasance or misrepresentation of fact, and did not err in setting the agreement aside.
The matter then went to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, which ruled there was no adequate evidence to support the conclusion and judgment of the Board. The facts are much discussed in a majority and dissenting opinion, 105 F. 2d 552. Another narration of them seems unnecessary.
Under the rule often announced, the function of the Board of Tax Appeals is to weigh the evidence and declare the result as to matters properly before' it. Upon review the court may not substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the Board. When there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of.the latter this must be accepted. Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U. S. 123, 131; General Utilities Co. v. Helvering, 296 U. S. 200, 206; Elmhurst Cemetery Co. v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 37, 40.
Here, upon evidence which we think is substantial (the dissenting member of the court below held the same view), the Board found fraud in fact which affected the closing agreement, and that the Commissioner properly set the contract aside. The court below should have accepted this finding of fact. As it failed so to do the challenged judgment must be reversed. The ruling of the Board is affirmed.
Reversed.
February 26, 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 113—
“Sec. 1106* (b). If after a determination and assessment in any case the taxpayer has paid in whole any tax or penalty, or accepted any abatement, credit, or refund based on such determination and assessment, and an agreement is made in writing between the taxpayer and the Commissioner, with the approval of' the Secretary, that such determination and assessment shall be final and conclusive, then (except upon a showing of fraud or malfeasance or misrepresentation of fact materially affecting the determination or assessment thus made) (1) the case shall not be reopened or the determination and assessment modified by any officer, employee, or agent of the United States, and (2) no suit, action, or proceeding to annul, modify, or set aside such determination or assessment shall be entertained by any court of the United States.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (51 total)
-
Dobson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 320 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1943)…v. Commissioner, 302 U. S. 63, 70; Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U. S. 282, 294; Colorado National Bank v. Commissioner, 305 U. S. 23; Helvering v. Lazarus & Co., 30S U. S. 252; Griffiths v. Commissioner, 308 U. S. 355; Helvering v. Kehoe, 309 U. S. 277; Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U. S. 212; Powers v. Commissioner, 312 U. S. 259; Wilmington Trust Co. v. Helvering, 316 U. S. 164, 168; Merchants National Bank v. Commissioner, ante, p. 256. Compare the foregoing with the eases cited supra note 8. S…
-
Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Helvering, 316 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1942)…tween conflicting inferences. The court may not substitute its view of the facts for that of the Board. Where the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence they are conclusive. Helvering v. Lazarus & Co., supra; Helvering v. Kehoe, 309 U. S. 277, and cases cited. Under the statute, the court may modify or reverse the decision of the Board only if it is “not in accordance with law.” 44 Stat. 110, 26 U. S. C. § 1141 (c) (1). In this case the criteria which the Board employed in determining wh…
-
Clark v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 266 F.2d 698 (9th Cir. 1959)…. 2d 263, 266. Whether the understatement of income in the return is due to fraud presents a question of fact, and when there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the tax court its judgment must be accepted. Helvering v. Kehoe, 1940, 309 U.S. 277, 279, 60 S.Ct. 549, 84 L.Ed. 751. In this case, following established precedent, the tax court did not limit itself to the Commissioner’s affirmative evidence, but instead considered, as it was entitled to do, the whole record in determining the exi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 51 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1935)
- Gen. Utils. & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1935)
- Elmhurst Cemetery Co. of Joliet v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 300 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1937)
- Kehoe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 105 F.2d 552 (3d Cir. 1939)