Communist Party of U.S.A. v. Commissioner

1965 T.C. Memo. 270, 24 T.C.M. 1468, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 61
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 6, 1965
DocketDocket No. 63763.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1965 T.C. Memo. 270 (Communist Party of U.S.A. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Communist Party of U.S.A. v. Commissioner, 1965 T.C. Memo. 270, 24 T.C.M. 1468, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 61 (tax 1965).

Opinion

Communist Party of the U.S.A. v. Commissioner.
Communist Party of U.S.A. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 63763.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1965-270; 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 61; 24 T.C.M. (CCH) 1468; T.C.M. (RIA) 65270;
October 6, 1965
John J. Abt, 11 Park Place, New York, N. Y., and Joseph Forer, for the petitioner. Mitchell Rogovin, Claude R. Wilson, Jr., and William J. Luff, Jr., for the respondent.

WITHEY

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

WITHEY, Judge: A deficiency in income and excess profits tax has been determined by the Commissioner against the petitioner for the taxable year 1951 in the amount of $261,050.38 and an addition to tax for delinquency in the filing of a return for such year in the amount of $65,262.60. The petitioner does not allege error in its petition with respect to the addition to tax. The issues under the pleadings are (1) whether respondent has determined such deficiency arbitrarily so that the burden of proof rests upon him rather than the petitioner, (2) whether petitioner had taxable income in the calendar*62 year 1951, and (3) whether petitioner is exempt from income taxation. Certain portions of the petition have been stricken as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues before us.

Findings of Fact

All stipulated facts are found as stipulated.

The petitioner is an unincorporated association with its principal office in New York City, New York.

An unincorporated association was organized in 1919 under the name of Communist Party of the U.S.A. and was dissolved on May 20, 1944. Thereafter, at a convention held on May 20-22, 1944, an unincorporated association was organized under the name of Communist Political Association. Subsequently and prior to July 28, 1945, that association was dissolved. Subsequent to the dissolution of the Communist Political Association and in or about July 1945, the petitioner as an unincorporated association was organized under the name of The Communist Party of the United States of America.

Neither the petitioner nor any of its predecessors has filed a Federal income tax or exempt organization information return for any year.

Neither petitioner nor any of its predecessors has filed with the respondent an application for exemption from Federal income*63 tax under section 101 or any other section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 or the predecessors thereof.

The investigation of the petitioner's income tax liability here in issue by the respondent's revenue agent began in approximately April 1954. The agent was informed by petitioner's representatives that the petitioner maintained no records other than payrolls. Respondent's revenue agent made several attempts to obtain information from the petitioner as to the source of its receipts and disbursements. Permission was not granted for an examination nor were complete records showing receipts and disbursements made available to the examining agent. In or about October 1954, the respondent's revenue agent issued an Internal Revenue Summons to 24 individuals to appear before the agent to give testimony concerning the tax liability of the petitioner. In or about October 1954, suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to have these revenue agent's summons quashed. This matter was subsequently resolved by agreement between the parties that eight of the individuals summoned would appear and testify. Pursuant to said agreement, seven*64 of these individuals subsequently appeared at the respondent's office in New York City, New York. Having been unable to arrive at petitioner's correct taxable income through any other method, respondent based the petitioner's taxable income on the petitioner's unexplained bank credits.

During the calendar year 1951, petitioner had approximately 25,000 members.

During the calendar year 1951, petitioner had the following monthly dues schedule in effect:

Unemployed and youth$ 0.15
Housewives0.50
Members earning up to $40 weekly0.50
Members earning $41 to $60 weekly1.25
Members earning $61 to $80 weekly2.50
Members earning $81 to $100 weekly3.00
Members earning over $100 weekly10.00

The dues were collected at the club level. Fifty percent of the dues were forwarded to the national office of the petitioner.

Ultimate Findings of Fact

Petitioner had taxable income in the calendar year 1951 in the sum of $391,985.85 as determined in the respondent's statutory notice of deficiency.

The petitioner is not exempt from income tax under section 101 or any other section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

Respondent's determination of petitioner's*65 income based on unexplained bank credits in the absence of books and records was not arbitrary and did not serve to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.

Opinion

As filed, the petition assigned error in respondent's determination of the deficiency herein primarily on the ground of estoppel because of his failure in years prior to 1951 to claim income tax from petitioner and because generally of his failure to claim such tax from political parties in the United States. These assignments of error, together with supporting allegations of fact, were stricken from the petition on respondent's motion.

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

Related

Goe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
198 F.2d 851 (Third Circuit, 1952)
Ethel A. Doll v. Seldon R. Glenn
231 F.2d 186 (Sixth Circuit, 1956)
John Factor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
281 F.2d 100 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)
Hoefle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
114 F.2d 713 (Sixth Circuit, 1940)
Wild v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 706 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1965 T.C. Memo. 270, 24 T.C.M. 1468, 1965 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/communist-party-of-usa-v-commissioner-tax-1965.