This case involved a dispute over tax deficiency claims by the IRS against Fotochrome, Inc., a debtor in Chapter XI bankruptcy proceedings, where a related Tax Court case had been pending since before the bankruptcy filing. The Referee in Bankruptcy denied the government's request to adjourn the bankruptcy hearing on objections to the IRS claim until the Tax Court could rule, asserting exclusive jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court under the Bankruptcy Act. On review, the District Court held that jurisdiction was concurrent and that the Tax Court should be given priority to try the consolidated tax cases first, with the bankruptcy court abstaining from pressing for trial in the interim, provided the Tax Court trial began by October 16, 1972. The reasoning centered on the need for expeditious adjudication amid delays in the bankruptcy process, the fact that the Tax Court litigation predated the bankruptcy, and the principle that in concurrent jurisdiction the first court to reach trial may proceed to a final decision.
The case involved the United States seeking summary judgment to collect unpaid federal tax assessments against defendant Samuel Malkin for withholding taxes related to a partnership and a corporation. The defendant did not contest the assessments but asserted a statute of limitations defense, noting that the basic six-year collection period under 26 U.S.C. § 6502 had expired. The court found the limitations period had been tolled by three written extensions tied to the defendant's offers in compromise and suspended during bankruptcy proceedings involving the taxpayer's assets under IRC § 6503(b), making the 1969 action timely. It therefore struck the answer and entered judgment for the plaintiff.
The case concerned the United States' effort to collect unpaid federal income taxes, penalties, and interest owed by Planet Plating Company, Inc. for 1955 and 1956 after Planet transferred its assets and business operations to Plastic Electro-Finishing Corporation in 1963. The court held Plastic liable for Planet's tax debts under the theory that the transfer constituted a fraudulent conveyance intended to hinder creditors, with Plastic operating as a mere continuation of Planet. The core reasoning was that the transaction lacked any legitimate business purpose, involved the same owners and operations, undervalued assets transferred while leaving tax liabilities behind, and occurred with full knowledge of imminent assessments exceeding $60,000.
The case consolidated two actions concerning liability under Section 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for unpaid withholding and social security taxes owed by subcontractor Vince’s Concrete Company for the second and third quarters of 1959. Regan & Company sued for a refund of $14,361 in taxes and interest it had paid, while the government sought to reduce a similar assessment against Charles W. Weisman to judgment. The court identified the central issues as whether Regan and Weisman qualified as responsible persons required to collect, account for, and pay over the taxes, and whether they willfully failed to do so. It adopted the government’s factual account where versions conflicted and detailed Weisman’s managerial role over the project, payment procedures, and interactions with the subcontractor. The opinion also addressed related provisions, including new rules under Section 3505 for third parties like sureties and lenders supplying funds.
The case concerned a government motion to compel answers from respondent Mrs. Goldsmith during an Internal Revenue Service summons proceeding investigating her husband's tax liabilities and possible asset transfers. The court addressed whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination could be invoked in this civil-labeled tax collection inquiry. It explained that the privilege applies to any proceeding, civil or criminal, where disclosures might lead to criminal prosecution, citing Supreme Court precedents such as Murphy v. Waterfront Commission and In re Gault. The opinion noted that Mrs. Goldsmith, represented by counsel, refused to answer questions by simply stating an objection without particularizing a Fifth Amendment claim, and her attorney's letters similarly failed to assert the privilege. The court further rejected arguments based on the statute of limitations as a basis for refusal while recognizing that proper invocation of the privilege could limit compelled disclosure of potentially incriminating information.
This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit in which Sealectro Corporation sued LVC Industries, Inc. for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent 3,145,329 covering a diode receptacle. LVC moved for summary judgment on the ground that the patent was invalid because Sealectro had filed a corresponding British patent application more than a year before the U.S. filing without first obtaining a license from the Commissioner of Patents as required by 35 U.S.C. §§ 184 and 185. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the decisive issue—whether the invention was “made” in the United States or abroad—is a disputed mixed question of law and fact that cannot be resolved on the papers alone and requires a trial.