Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

FRIEDY B. HEISLER, M.D. AND FRANCIS HEISLER, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND JOSEPH M. CULLEN, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

PER CURIAM:

In this tax case the district court had jurisdiction over the refund claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The appellants, however, do not fit within the statute. Their bodies and skills are not among the "other natural deposits" for which the Internal Revenue Code allows a deduction for percentage depletion.

On the claim that 26 U.S.C. §§ 611 et seq. are unconstitutional, the Heislers lack the requisite standing to raise this issue. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968).

The appellants style their lawsuit a class action. However, there is no showing that any other members of the purported class filed the requisite demands for refund. 26 U.S.C § 7422.

The judgment is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HEISLER v. UNITED STATES
(Jul 17, 1972)