Fletcher Plastics, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
64 T.C. 35 (1975)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
In June 1974, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a deficiency notice addressed to “Atlas Tool Co., Inc. Successor to Fletcher Plastics, Inc.” In November, a petition was filed in the United States Tax Court against the commissioner (defendant) of the IRS with the caption “Fletcher Plastics, Inc., Stephan Schaffan, Transferee, Petitioner.” Counsel for Atlas Tool Co. (Atlas) (plaintiff) signed the petition, by which Atlas intended to challenge the deficiency notice. Per the petition, Fletcher Plastics, Inc. (Fletcher) was dissolved years before the IRS sent the deficiency notice, and Schaffan was Fletcher’s sole shareholder. In October, the commissioner moved to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds, contending that the petition was not filed in the name of a proper party. In November, Atlas’s counsel moved to amend the caption and petition pursuant to Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) 41(a) and 60(a). The commissioner conceded that the November petition was timely filed, but he argued that neither Fletcher nor Schaffan was allowed to petition the Tax Court on Atlas’s behalf. Atlas responded that it was permitted to ratify and amend the initial petition even after the expiration of the 90-day post-deficiency-notice deadline for filing a new petition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dawson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.