Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Rethorst v. Commissioner

Rethorst v. Comm’r, 509 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1974)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1974-12-03
Topic: litigation

OPINION PER CURIAM: The taxpayer appeals a decision of the Tax Court finding him liable for unpaid income taxes for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964. T.C. Memo. 1972-222, 31 CCH Tax.Ct.Mem. 1101 (1972). We affirm. The facts are set out in detail in the Tax Court Memorandum.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rethorst v. Commissioner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

RETHORST v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,509 F.2d 623(9th Cir. 1974)

SCOTT C. RETHORST, APPELLANT, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, APPELLEE.

VEHICLE RESEARCH CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, APPELLEE.

Nos. 73-1925, 73-1926.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 3, 1974.

Rehearing Denied January 7, 1975.

Certiorari Denied June 2, 1975.

William J. Currer, Jr. (argued), Currer, Kayaian Kakita, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Dennis M. Nonohue (argued), Tax Div., Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.

Before CARTER, TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

[1] OPINION

PER CURIAM:

[2] The taxpayer appeals a decision of the Tax Court finding him liable for unpaid income taxes for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964. T.C. Memo. 1972-222, 31 CCH Tax.Ct.Mem. 1101 (1972). We affirm.

[3] The facts are set out in detail in the Tax Court Memorandum. We have examined the lengthy record and are satisfied that there is substantial evidence to support the Tax Court's finding that the taxpayer constructively received the income paid by the taxpayer's wholly owned California corporation to a Swiss corporation controlled by the taxpayer.

[4] The record also supports the assessment of an addition to tax under Section6653(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, for "negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations".

[5] Affirmed.