C. A. Lawton Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

C. A. Lawton Co. v. Commissioner

13 B.T.A. 8, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3330

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedJuly 23, 1928

DocketDocket No. 12863.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 B.T.A. 8 (C. A. Lawton Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. A. Lawton Co. v. Commissioner, 13 B.T.A. 8, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3330 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[9]*9OPINION.

Maeqtjettb :

The only issue in this proceeding is whether assessment and collection of the deficiency asserted by the respondent in the deficiency letter of March 9, 1926, are barred by the statute of limitations. We are of the opinion that they are not. The evidence shows that the petitioner’s original return was filed on June 9, 1921. On or about June 14, 1922, it filed a supplemental return showing additional tax due thereon. The additional tax arose from the fact that in the original return the petitioner had claimed and taken a specific exemption of $2,000 to which it was not entitled under the Revenue Act of 1921. Since on account of changes or differences in the Revenue Act of 1921 from the Revenue Act of 1918, a larger tax was due from the petitioner than was shown on the original return, the petitioner was required to file a return for the fiscal year in question under the Revenue Act of 1921.

The situation here presented comes squarely within the scope of our decision in John Wanamaker Philadelphia, 8 B. T. A. 864, and on the authority thereof we hold that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against the assessment and collection of the additional tax involved herein until June 14, 1922, and that the deficiency letter having been mailed to the petitioner within four years from that date, assessment and collection are not barred.

Reviewed by the Board.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[9]*9OPINION.

Maeqtjettb :

The only issue in this proceeding is whether assessment and collection of the deficiency asserted by the respondent in the deficiency letter of March 9, 1926, are barred by the statute of limitations. We are of the opinion that they are not. The evidence shows that the petitioner’s original return was filed on June 9, 1921. On or about June 14, 1922, it filed a supplemental return showing additional tax due thereon. The additional tax arose from the fact that in the original return the petitioner had claimed and taken a specific exemption of $2,000 to which it was not entitled under the Revenue Act of 1921. Since on account of changes or differences in the Revenue Act of 1921 from the Revenue Act of 1918, a larger tax was due from the petitioner than was shown on the original return, the petitioner was required to file a return for the fiscal year in question under the Revenue Act of 1921.

The situation here presented comes squarely within the scope of our decision in John Wanamaker Philadelphia, 8 B. T. A. 864, and on the authority thereof we hold that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against the assessment and collection of the additional tax involved herein until June 14, 1922, and that the deficiency letter having been mailed to the petitioner within four years from that date, assessment and collection are not barred.

Reviewed by the Board.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 B.T.A. 8, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-a-lawton-co-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack