Jackman v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Jackman v. Commissioner

2 B.T.A. 515, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2369

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 1925

DocketDocket No. 1091.

StatusPublished

This text of 2 B.T.A. 515 (Jackman 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

Jackman v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 515, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2369 (bta 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[516]*516OPINION.

James:

The Commissioner moved to dismiss the appeal of this taxpayer on the ground that it consisted merely m an indirect application for a claim for .refund which this Board could not grant. But we have held in the Appeal of Hichory Spinning Company, 1 B. T. A. 409, that the Board may consider any matter which is a proper defense to an asserted deficiency. The taxpayer set up as a ground for appeal from the deficiency asserted by the Commissioner that the income originally returned ivas erroneous and that the taxpayer does not owe a deficiency. This issue is clearly before the Board and clearly within its jurisdiction. Its determination, to be sure, can not have the effect of ordering the Commissioner to pay a refund. Its determination can be at most that no deficiency is due. The motion of the Commissioner must, therefore, be denied.

The motion having been in the nature of a demurrer, the next inquiry is whether the facts as stated by the taxpayer, taken to be true and found in the above findings of fact, constitute a cause of, action. We must hold that they do not, and decide for the Commissioner on the merits under the authority of Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U. S. 161, decided April 27, 1925.

Arundell not participating.

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

[516]*516OPINION.

James:

The Commissioner moved to dismiss the appeal of this taxpayer on the ground that it consisted merely m an indirect application for a claim for .refund which this Board could not grant. But we have held in the Appeal of Hichory Spinning Company, 1 B. T. A. 409, that the Board may consider any matter which is a proper defense to an asserted deficiency. The taxpayer set up as a ground for appeal from the deficiency asserted by the Commissioner that the income originally returned ivas erroneous and that the taxpayer does not owe a deficiency. This issue is clearly before the Board and clearly within its jurisdiction. Its determination, to be sure, can not have the effect of ordering the Commissioner to pay a refund. Its determination can be at most that no deficiency is due. The motion of the Commissioner must, therefore, be denied.

The motion having been in the nature of a demurrer, the next inquiry is whether the facts as stated by the taxpayer, taken to be true and found in the above findings of fact, constitute a cause of, action. We must hold that they do not, and decide for the Commissioner on the merits under the authority of Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U. S. 161, decided April 27, 1925.

Arundell not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 B.T.A. 515, 1925 BTA LEXIS 2369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackman-v-commissioner-bta-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack