and anticipates approximately 160 weeks of trial work in 50 major cities throughout the United States. This is considered to be the maximum trial calendar that can be undertaken without overloading the judges.

According to present estimates, new tax cases to be filed before the court during the fiscal year 1959 will reach the highest level since 1953, when 7,122 new cases were received. The court makes no attempt to provide a factual explanation for the rising trend indicated. However, there appears to be an increasing proportion of new litigation attributable to the changes enacted in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The court is fully aware of the volume problem presented to it, and, to meet the situation, it will continue to establish the maximum trial program possible and to utilize fully the judges available without creating critical burdens for them.

Senator ROBERTSON. Any questions?

Senator DIRKSEN. Only one question.

As in other years, Judge, we always try to find out what your docket is like, whether you are diligent in the pursuit of these matters and getting the load whittled down and getting recalcitrant taxpayers satisfied. You send everybody away happy, I am sure, don't you?

Judge MURDOCK. We try, of course, to stand between the Treasury and the taxpayer on these matters, but sometimes we have to decide that the Treasury is correct.

Senator DIRKSEN. That makes the Treasury happy and the taxpayer quite unhappy.

Judge MURDOCK. I think they are both happy.
Senator DIRKSEN. You think they are both happy.

Judge MURDOCK. I think so.

WORKLOAD

Our workload, Senator, has been going up, and, with the Code of 1954, I think it was natural to expect some additional load of litigation because the 1939 Code had been in effect for quite a while and a number of things had been pretty well settled. With a new code, we could expect some additional cases to be filed, and they were.

For about 3 years the number of cases that we were closing was exceeding the number that was coming in, but with 1957 the trend changed and I think it was due largely to that.

Senator BRIDGES. How many cases do you run a year, as a whole? Judge MURDOCK. Anywhere from 4,500 to 5,500 would be normal coming in, and if we can get out a like number or a little more, then our backlog doesn't increase, naturally. But it increased in 1957. Senator BRIDGES. What was the total?

Mr. SCHOENFELDER. We actually filed 5,259 in 1957.

Judge MURDOCK. That exceeds the figure I was talking about. Senator BRIDGES. After they are filed and before they come to hearing or trial, some of those cases are settled and withdrawn.

Judge MURDOCK. Yes, Senator. The number of cases filed with the Tax Court is misleading because at least two-thirds of those cases will be settled without any effort on the part of the Tax Court at all. So have that in there.

The Commissioner sends out his notice of deficiency, and the petition can come in within 90 days, but the negotiation for possibility of settlement continues. The fact of the matter is that over two-thirds of the cases docketed are eventually settled, and the ones that we decide are in the remaining one-third.

There is a waiting period there, but it is not lost time, as it might be in other courts, because of that period for cooling off and further negotiation for settlement. And the time isn't wasted by any means.

If we were ready to decide every case the moment it became at issue, I think the settlements would be materially less, but, because there is a waiting period, there is settlement; there is negotiation. The Internal Revenue Service continues to negotiate with the taxpayers. And even after our notice of trial goes out, a large number of the cases are settled after that. The time comes when they are going to have to try this case or settle it, and then both parties become pretty sober about settlement, and most of the settlements occur at that time.

Senator BRIDGES. After the average case is filed, is it heard by the court? And then how long does it take before a decision comes out? Judge MURDOCK. The chances are that the cases that are heard have been there on an average of probably as much as 2 years. An average like that is always somewhat misleading. There may be a great many of those cases that are there because the parties want them there. There may be something pending in the Supreme Court. It may be something like that, or they may have some other matter that has to be settled elsewhere before they can get around to the trial or settlement of his case.

So it is somewhat misleading. But I would say a couple of years. Once we hear it, then it is only a matter of 6 months or so until it is decided. The parties have to file briefs during that period, and the judge will get around to it and decide it. That period is not long.

Senator DIRKSEN. Judge, did you submit in the House hearings here a tabular statement showing cases filed, cases disposed of over a period of years, and what your present workload is? Judge MURDOCK. Yes. It is all in the record.

SIMPLICATION OF TAX RETURN FORM

Senator DIRKSEN. I have one other question.

It would occur to me that you gentlemen on the Tax Court, by virtue of the diversity of cases which come to your attention, which range the whole gamut of the Internal Revenue Code, ought to be in a peculiarly good position to be able to appraise and make recommendations on occasions for simplification of this labyrinthian and bewildering tax system. It will baffle a Philadelphia lawyer.

Judge MURDOCK. I am about to make up my own return this afternoon. I know what you mean.

Senator DIRKSEN. I am about to make up my return and I shudder when the time comes, even though it is along reasonably simple lines. I not only shudder as to the return, but I shudder as to the amount. However, that is neither here nor there. This thing has to be simplified. I think this is an impossible situation we have.

Judge MURDOCK. Following us comes the Treasury, Senator Dirksen, and I hope that they will have the brains to do that."

and anticipates approximately 160 weeks of trial work in 50 major cities throughout the United States. This is considered to be the maximum trial calendar that can be undertaken without overloading the judges.

According to present estimates, new tax cases to be filed before the court during the fiscal year 1959 will reach the highest level since 1953, when 7,122 new cases were received. The court makes no attempt to provide a factual explanation for the rising trend indicated. However, there appears to be an increasing proportion of new litigation attributable to the changes enacted in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The court is fully aware of the volume problem presented to it, and, to meet the situation, it will continue to establish the maximum trial program possible and to utilize fully the judges available without creating critical burdens for them.

Senator ROBERTSON. Any questions?

Senator DIRKSEN. Only one question.

As in other years, Judge, we always try to find out what your docket is like, whether you are diligent in the pursuit of these matters and getting the load whittled down and getting recalcitrant taxpayers satisfied. You send everybody away happy, I am sure, don't you?

Judge MURDOCK. We try, of course, to stand between the Treasury and the taxpayer on these matters, but sometimes we have to decide that the Treasury is correct.

Senator DIRKSEN. That makes the Treasury happy and the taxpayer quite unhappy.

Judge MURDOCK. I think they are both happy.
Senator DIRKSEN. You think they are both happy.

Judge MURDOCK. I think so.

WORKLOAD

Our workload, Senator, has been going up, and, with the Code of 1954, I think it was natural to expect some additional load of litigation because the 1939 Code had been in effect for quite a while and a number of things had been pretty well settled. With a new code, we could expect some additional cases to be filed, and they were.

For about 3 years the number of cases that we were closing was exceeding the number that was coming in, but with 1957 the trend changed and I think it was due largely to that.

Senator BRIDGES. How many cases do you run a year, as a whole? Judge MURDOCK. Anywhere from 4,500 to 5,500 would be normal coming in, and if we can get out a like number or a little more, then our backlog doesn't increase, naturally. But it increased in 1957. Senator BRIDGES. What was the total?

Mr. SCHOENFELDER. We actually filed 5,259 in 1957.

Judge MURDOCK. That exceeds the figure I was talking about. Senator BRIDGES. After they are filed and before they come to hearing or trial, some of those cases are settled and withdrawn.

Judge MURDOCK. Yes, Senator. The number of cases filed with the Tax Court is misleading because at least two-thirds of those cases will be settled without any effort on the part of the Tax Court at all. So have that in there.

The Commissioner sends out his notice of deficiency, and the petition can come in within 90 days, but the negotiation for possibility of settlement continues. The fact of the matter is that over two-thirds of the cases docketed are eventually settled, and the ones that we decide are in the remaining one-third.

There is a waiting period there, but it is not lost time, as it might be in other courts, because of that period for cooling off and further negotiation for settlement. And the time isn't wasted by any means.

If we were ready to decide every case the moment it became at issue, I think the settlements would be materially less, but, because there is a waiting period, there is settlement; there is negotiation. The Internal Revenue Service continues to negotiate with the taxpayers. And even after our notice of trial goes out, a large number of the cases are settled after that. The time comes when they are going to have to try this case or settle it, and then both parties become pretty sober about settlement, and most of the settlements occur at that time.

Senator BRIDGES. After the average case is filed, is it heard by the court? And then how long does it take before a decision comes out? Judge MURDOCK. The chances are that the cases that are heard have been there on an average of probably as much as 2 years. An average like that is always somewhat misleading. There may be a great many of those cases that are there because the parties want them there. There may be something pending in the Supreme Court. It may be something like that, or they may have some other matter that has to be settled elsewhere before they can get around to the trial or settlement of his case.

So it is somewhat misleading. But I would say a couple of years. Once we hear it, then it is only a matter of 6 months or so until it is decided. The parties have to file briefs during that period, and the judge will get around to it and decide it. That period is not long.

Senator DIRKSEN. Judge, did you submit in the House hearings here a tabular statement showing cases filed, cases disposed of over a period of years, and what your present workload is? Judge MURDOCK. Yes. It is all in the record.

SIMPLICATION OF TAX RETURN FORM

Senator DIRKSEN. I have one other question.

It would occur to me that you gentlemen on the Tax Court, by virtue of the diversity of cases which come to your attention, which range the whole gamut of the Internal Revenue Code, ought to be in a peculiarly good position to be able to appraise and make recommendations on occasions for simplification of this labyrinthian and bewildering tax system. It will baffle a Philadelphia lawyer.

Judge MURDOCK. I am about to make up my own return this afternoon. I know what you mean.

Senator DIRKSEN. I am about to make up my return and I shudder when the time comes, even though it is along reasonably simple lines. I not only shudder as to the return, but I shudder as to the amount. However, that is neither here nor there. This thing has to be simplified. I think this is an impossible situation we have.

Judge MURDOCK. Following us comes the Treasury, Senator Dirksen, and I hope that they will have the brains to do that."

Senator DIRKSEN. You say you hope the Treasury will have the brains to?

Judge MURDOCK. That is right.

Senator DIRKSEN. I am for that.

Judge MURDOCK. It isn't too desirable that the Tax Court should get too mixed up in legislation, because we have to decide this legislation and make determinations in the light of the legislation, and I think it is just as well if we don't have too much of a part in enacting it.

Of course, if I had any suggestion that I thought would be helpful, I wouldn't hesitate to give it. In fact, it is sometimes asked by the joint committee, and if we have any suggestion we give it.

Senator DIRKSEN. Suppose that we three members of this subcommittee, who think in a common frame and have for so long, should vote as of now to mandate the distinguished chairman of this committee to send you a letter and ask you whether you have any suggestions or recommendations for a simplification of the tax return, would you feel free under your authority to make a reasonably good and detailed response to that letter?

Judge MURDOCK. Senator, I wouldn't think, in the first place, I am particularly qualified to do that. I have never refused to do anything that I could to help in any respect, but I don't believe that that would be a particularly good thing for the Tax Court to do. However, if requested, we certainly would do the best we could. That would require quite a bit of research and study, and we don't have facilities for that.

Senator DIRKSEN. We might talk the chairman into providing you some additional facilities. In any event, it is a matter that engages our attention year after year, and maybe sometime we will get something done in that field.

That is all.

COURT MEMBERSHIP

Senator ROBERTSON. How long have you been a member of this court?

Judge MURDOCK. Senator, I have been a member of this court since June 1926.

Senator ROBERTSON. You will remember when former Representative Disney and I once had a little change made in the law to make you a judge?

Judge MURDOCK. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. How many members of the court are there? Judge MURDOCK. There are 16 regular members of the court.

At the moment we have four retired judges who have been called back and are on full-time duty.

Under the law I can call them back whether they care to come back or not for as much as 90 days, but all 4 judges have consented to come back on a full-time basis and I have called them back on a fulltime basis, and they have been working at that for some time.

Senator ROBERTSON. I believe the chief judge is selected by majority vote?

Judge MURDOCK. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. At least every 2 years, and they can rotate that?

Judge MURDOCK. Yes, sir; it is rotated.