Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Paul L. And Marie C. Drouin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

203 F.2d 953

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1953-04-17
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by a taxpayer from a decision of the Tax Court which dismissed his case there for want of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was found in the taxpayer’s failure to follow the statute with regard to time for proceedings in the Tax Court. The Tax Court’s action was correct. It also appears that the taxpayer was given the notice required by -statute and that he failed to appear at the hearing before the Tax Court.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Paul L. And Marie C. Drouin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
DROUIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,203 F.2d 953(3rd Cir. 1953)
Paul L. and Marie C. DROUIN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 10958.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 6, 1953.
Decided April 17, 1953,
On Petition to Review the Decision of the Tax Court of the United States.
Paul L. Drouin, petitioner, pro se (Marie C. Drouin, petitioner, on the brief).

Dudley J. Godfrey, Jr., Washington, D.C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Helen Goodner, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a taxpayer from a decision of the Tax Court which dismissed his case there for want of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was found in the taxpayer's failure to follow the statute with regard to time for proceedings in the Tax Court. The Tax Court's action was correct. It also appears that the taxpayer was given the notice required by statute and that he failed to appear at the hearing before the Tax Court. While we endeavor to be particularly careful in cases where a taxpayer represents himself, as this one does, we find nothing in the law to help him nor anything in the circumstances of his case which makes us feel that the law has worked an injustice because of our inability to give him assistance.

The decision will be affirmed.