UNITED STATES

v.

MOORE ET UX.; UNITED STATES V. LEWIS; GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Lesoine, 203 F.2d 123 (9th Cir. 1953)
  …ts equivalent.” The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the rule, saying that the “claim of right” doctrine “is now deeply rooted in the federal tax system.” United States v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590, 592, 71 S.Ct. 522, 523, 95 L.Ed. 560, rehearing denied 341 U.S. 923, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1356. Referring to the above-quoted rule laid down in the North American case, the Court said that “Nothing in this language permits an exception merely because a taxpayer is ‘mistaken’ as to the validity of his claim.” Id.,…
• Noble v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 368 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1966)
  …come activity of the one reporting year. If one year’s income could be changed by events occurring in subsequent years, there would never be any finality in the system. United States v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590, 71 S.Ct. 522, 95 L.Ed. 560, rehearing den. 341 U.S. 923, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1356; United States v. Lesoine, 9 Cir., 203 F. 2d 123; Phillips v. C. I. R., 9 Cir., 262 F. 2d 668. Returns could be reopened and altered, to the confusion of fiscal policy and revenue collection. Thus, the present scheme of…