Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

M. Hunter Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

M. Hunter Brown v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 418 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1969)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-12-02
Topic
general

DECISION PER CURIAM. Brown is a noted neurosurgeon. The government took exception to some of his income tax returns and deficiencies and fraud penalties were asserted by the commissioner. Brown tried his own case in the tax court. He there handled the case about as badly as the three judges of this panel would have handled a neurosurgical operation.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed M. Hunter Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
BROWN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,418 F.2d 574(9th Cir. 1969)
M. Hunter BROWN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
No. 23657.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 21, 1969.
Rehearing Denied December 2, 1969.
Page 575
L. Morris Dennis (argued), Charles R. Anderson of Anderson, Ablon Crouch, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

John M. Brant (argued), Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge.
DECISION
PER CURIAM.
Brown is a noted neurosurgeon. The government took exception to some of his income tax returns and deficiencies and fraud penalties were asserted by the commissioner.

Brown tried his own case in the tax court. He there handled the case about as badly as the three judges of this panel would have handled a neurosurgical operation. The tax court entered a decision against him, finding a considerable deficiency and fraud with its usual fifty per cent penalty.

On appeal, too late, he has hired very competent counsel. But stuck in the mud with the trial record, counsel simply cannot pull the doctor out.

We find there was competent evidence to sustain the decision unless absolute mathematical certainty be required. And it is not required. The fact that there was some conflicting evidence does not prevent a conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence to sustain the tax court's findings and conclusions.

The decision is affirmed.