George Rosling

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

taxesprocedure

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

taxescriminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a copyright infringement claim brought by author Jean Genet, translator Bernard Frechtman, publisher Gallimard, and Grove Press against Greenleaf Publishing Company over competing English-language versions of Genet's 1949 French book Journal du Voleur (The Thief's Journal). Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from selling their 1965 edition, which was a photocopy of a 1954 Paris-published Frechtman translation that had not complied with U.S. copyright formalities. The court reviewed the sequence of publications, including a 1952 copyrighted English excerpt, the uncopyrighted 1954 full translation, and Grove's 1964 copyrighted revised U.S. edition, and determined that a prima facie showing of plaintiffs' copyright in the revised translation had been made. Drawing on precedents such as Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, the court reasoned that such a showing in a copyright case warrants interim injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of the action without needing detailed proof of injury.

property

The case involved a taxpayer's lawsuit against the District Director of Internal Revenue seeking to enjoin collection of a 100% penalty assessment under IRC § 6672 for unpaid employment taxes of an alleged corporation and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the assessment was invalid, on the grounds that the corporation never existed and the plaintiff was never an officer responsible for collecting or paying the taxes. The Director moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, citing IRC § 7421 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as bars to the requested relief, and the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment after considering affidavits on the facts of the plaintiff's involvement with the business. The court held that the suit could not proceed, as § 7421 prohibits injunctions against the collection of federal taxes and § 2201 expressly withholds consent to declaratory judgment actions with respect to federal taxes, with no applicable exception shown on the record. It further noted that liability under § 6672 can attach for failure to account for and pay over collected taxes even if another person had the duty to collect them.

taxesprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Tri-Boro Bagel Co. suing defendant Bakery Drivers Union Local 802 in New York state court for an injunction to halt a strike allegedly violating a no-strike clause and arbitration provision in their collective bargaining agreement. The union removed the action to federal district court under LMRA §301(a), and the plaintiff moved to remand it back to state court. The court denied the remand motion, holding that the suit fell squarely under federal labor law governing contracts between employers and unions in industries affecting commerce, that federal substantive law applies in either forum, and that removal is permitted even where Norris-LaGuardia would bar the federal court from issuing the requested injunction. The decision rested on established precedent that §301(a) provides concurrent jurisdiction but requires uniform application of federal law, allowing the federal court to retain the case for dismissal on the merits rather than returning it to state court.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a copyright infringement claim by textbook authors Francis Weston Sears and Mark W. Zemansky, along with their publisher Addison-Wesley, against defendants who produced a Manual of Solutions containing answers to problems in the plaintiffs' physics textbooks. The court decided to permanently enjoin the defendants from infringing the copyrights by printing, publishing, or distributing the solutions manual or any similar materials. The reasoning centered on the determination that the solutions manual reproduced a substantial and material part of the copyrighted textbooks, including the carefully selected and arranged problems and their solutions, which constituted protectable expression under copyright law. Remaining claims regarding unfair competition were deferred for further pretrial proceedings.

propertyprocedure