Record
Court opinion
1935-02-13
CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion
Westheimer v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 12 F. Supp. 20 (S.D.N.Y. 1935)
District Court opinion of 1935 dismissing a petition over a tax levy on a bank account: it states that an income-tax assessment of $79,000 was entered "against one Flegenheimer, alias Dutch Schultz," and that the Collector levied on an account in another person's name on December 24, 1934.
- Date
- 1935-02-13
- Kind
- court-opinion
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-12
- Rights
- Opinion of a United States court. Works of the federal judiciary are in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 105; judicial opinions are not subject to copyright). The text was read on CourtListener.
District Court, Southern District of New York, opinion of District Judge Patterson. CourtListener dates the opinion February 13, 1935; the text as read prints no docket number. United States Attorney Martin Conboy and an assistant appeared for the Collector.
The opinion opens: “An assessment for income tax was entered against one Flegenheimer, alias Dutch Schultz, in the amount of $79,000. On December 24, 1934, the Collector of Internal Revenue gave notice of levy under this assessment to Chemical Bank & Trust Company, the notice declaring that the levy was intended to cover any deposit in the name of one Westheimer.” The account held more than $41,000, and the bank stopped paying it out. The petitioner said that Flegenheimer “neither owned the bank account nor had any interest in it” and asked the court to order the Collector to sue or release the lien.
The court dismissed the petition: the petitioner could bring a suit of her own to test the lien, and “the collector is not an officer of the court and is not subject to summary process like that asked for in this case.” The opinion does not decide whom the money belonged to.
This is a civil ruling on a tax lien. It is not a record of the 1935 criminal tax trials, for which no reported opinion has been found. The petitioner was a private person and is named here only as the case title names her.
