Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BISHOP v. WARREN

April 14, 1967

Richard Bishop, Plaintiff
v.
Neal S. Warren, District Director, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant


Powell, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: POWELL

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

POWELL, District Judge:

 This matter came on regularly for trial before this Court on December 20, 1966, the plaintiff being represented by Howard K. Michaelsen, attorney at law, and the defendant by Robert M. Sweeney, Assistant United States Attorney, and the Court having considered the pretrial order herein, the evidence adduced at trial, the argument of counsel, now makes the following

 Findings of Fact

 I.

 The plaintiff Richard Bishop is, and at all times material hereto was, a resident of the city of Newport, Pend Oreille County, State of Washington. The defendant Neal S. Warren is, and at all times material hereto was, the District Director for the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury of the United States.

 II.

 The plaintiff is the son of Charles E. Bishop and Ruth N. Bishop, who at all times material hereto were also residents of the city of Newport, Pend Oreille County, State of Washington.

 III.

 By quit-claim deed dated February 8, 1957, Charles E. Bishop conveyed to his son, the plaintiff herein, a motion picture theater business located in Newport, Washington, and operated under the name of the Roxy Theater. Thereafter, there was operated from the theater building in Newport, Washington, a loan and collection business.

 IV.

 The plaintiff Richard Bishop devoted the majority of his time to the operation and management of the theater business. Charles E. Bishop devoted most of his time to and controlled the operation of the collection business. The said Charles E. Bishop prepared and filed complaints for collection in the Pend Oreille County courts. The complaints were filed in the name of Charles E. Bishop as the party in interest. Charles E. Bishop contacted other collection agencies in the course of the collection business. The collection agency bond required under the law of the State of Washington was written to Charles E. Bishop as the operator of the collection business.

 V.

 For the taxable year 1958, and for the years thereafter, Charles E. Bishop and Ruth N. Bishop did not file income tax returns. During these years, the plaintiff Richard Bishop claimed Charles E. Bishop ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.