In Matter of Flowers, an inmate at the Wisconsin State Prison filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of himself and his spouse, alleging that the enforced celibacy resulting from his detention impaired the obligations of their marriage contract and seeking eight million dollars in compensatory damages; this was his seventh filing challenging the validity of his detention. The court denied the inmate's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It reasoned that the claim failed to state an actionable claim because marriage is a social relation subject to the state's police power rather than a contract protected from impairment under the Constitution, the inmate had impaired his own marital obligations through his conduct, and the State of Wisconsin is not a suable person under the Civil Rights Statutes.
This case involves the Internal Revenue Service's petition to enforce summonses issued to Lowell E. Moriarty, as an officer of Moriarty Manufacturing Company, seeking corporate records from 1963 to 1965 as part of a tax investigation. Moriarty refused to comply, alleging the summonses were issued for an improper purpose of gathering evidence for criminal tax fraud prosecution and that the records had already been examined, and he sought to depose the investigating IRS agents. The government moved to quash the discovery, arguing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply or that discovery should be denied in the court's discretion to avoid delays in enforcement. The court denied the motion to quash, holding that the Rules apply to these enforcement proceedings under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a), that Moriarty had raised valid defenses requiring factual development, and that limited discovery was appropriate to allow him to meet his burden without undue delay.
This case concerns co-executors of the Estate of Henry L. Lindner seeking recovery of estate tax deficiencies assessed after the IRS included the decedent's $43,925.41 contribution to the Fern I. Thompson Trust (created under a prenuptial agreement) and $9,865.10 in life insurance proceeds in the gross estate. The court held that the insurance policy proceeds were includible in the estate under IRC Section 2042 because the decedent retained incidents of ownership at death, even though he had agreed to make the trust the beneficiary. It further concluded that the same proceeds qualified for the marital deduction under Section 2056 as a non-terminable interest received by the widow, who was the named beneficiary under the policy terms.
This case concerned a breach of contract action by Erving Paper Mills against Hudson-Sharp Machine Co. for failure to deliver two wrapping machines as promised, with liability already established in prior proceedings. The court reviewed objections to a Special Master's damages report and affirmed findings that damages could be calculated based on the defendant's oral representations of labor savings and that the contract obligated delivery of two machines. It upheld a reduction in damages for the plaintiff's failure to mitigate by not pressing the substitute supplier for timely delivery, while denying prejudgment interest from the liability ruling and certain costs for deposition copies and excess witness travel.
This case involved a lawsuit by Robert Thurner seeking a refund of penalties assessed by the IRS for failing to pay withholding and F.I.C.A. taxes owed by Universal Duplicating Machine Co., where Thurner had assumed significant control. The court dismissed the claim, finding Thurner liable for the taxes. The decision was based on evidence that Thurner was a responsible person with authority over company funds after September 1957 and that his failure to pay the taxes was willful, as he prioritized other operating expenses and creditor payments despite knowing the tax obligations were due and funds were available.
In this bankruptcy case under Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act, the debtor George Henry Gates filed a wage earners' petition in March 1963, with his plan confirmed in June 1963. The United States sought to file an administrative claim in April 1964 for unpaid federal income taxes from 1962 and 1963, after the six-month deadline under Section 57(n), arguing that Section 680 allowed such tax liabilities to be assessed against and paid by the debtor with priority. The referee denied leave to file the claim, finding Section 680 inapplicable in wage earners' proceedings. The district court vacated the referee's order, holding that Section 680 expressly covers pre-confirmation taxes found owing within one year of filing and taxes arising during the proceeding, permitting them to participate in the plan and enjoy priority under Section 64(a) despite the late filing, and remanded for further proceedings.