L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner

45 B.T.A. 528, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1113
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedOctober 28, 1941
DocketDocket No. 103595.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 B.T.A. 528 (L. & C. Mayers 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
L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner, 45 B.T.A. 528, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1113 (bta 1941).

Opinion

[529]*529OPINION.

Hill :

In addition to the issues which we have stated in the preface to our findings of fact in this proceeding, petitioner urges the unconstitutionality of section 14 of the Eevenue Act of 1936 and requests that we determine that it overpaid undistributed profits surtax for the taxable years imposed under that section of the statute. Respondent determined no deficiencies in surtax on undistributed profits of petitioner in either of the taxable years. We have, therefore, no jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of such tax in this proceeding, nor may we determine whether petitioner overpaid undistributed profits surtaxes. Union Telephone Co., 41 B. T. A. 152; Hobbs Western Co., 43 B. T. A. 5.

The first issue for our consideration is whether or not petitioner’s excess profits tax for the taxable years is to be computed on the basis of petitioner’s capital stock tax return for 1936 filed on or about July 31, 1936, or on the basis of petitioner’s amended capital [530]*530stock tax return for 1936 filed on or about April 26, 1937. Petitioner contends that its excess profits tax should be computed on the basis of the capital stock value declared in its amended return filed April 26, 1937, and asserts that such return was a “first return” within the meaning of section 105 of the Revenue Act of 1935 as amended.1 Respondent argues that the amended return was not timely filed and hence can not be considered as a “first return.”

Petitioner relies on Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U. S. 389, in support of its argument that the amended return is to be considered a [531]*531“first return” for purposes of declaration of capital stock value. In that case the Supreme Court, in considering section 215 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, predecessor of section 105 of the Revenue Act of 1935, upheld the taxpayer’s contention that a “first return” may include an amended return, stating:

“First return” thus means a return for the first year in which the taxpayer exercises the privilege of fixing its capital stock value for tax purposes, and includes a timely amended return for that year.

Thus, if petitioner’s amended return were “timely” the declaration of value declared therein would be the proper basis of computation rather than the declaration of value contained in the original return. We note, however, that the Supreme Court did not hold that any amended return might be used to substitute a declaration for that contained in the original return filed. In Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 311. U. S. 55, the Supreme Court held that an amended return filed after the period within which an original return might be filed was not a “first return” within the meaning of section 114 (b) (4) of the Revenue Act of 1934 (election of percentage depletion). Cf. Healy River Coal Corporation, 44 B. T. A. 613. We are of the opinion that if an amended return is to be considered a “first return” the amended return must be filed within the time permitted for filing under the controlling revenue act. Section 105 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1935 provides that a capital stock tax return must be filed within one month after the close of the taxable year. It is further provided that the Commissioner may extend the time for filing such return, but that no extension might exceed 60 days. The amended return here under consideration was not filed within the time provided by the statute. Healy Rimer Coal Corporation, supra. We hold that the correct basis for computing petitioner’s excess profits tax liability for the taxable years is the declared value of $500,000 contained in petitioner’s original return filed on or about July 31,1936.

The other issue relates to the constitutionality of section 106 of the Revenue Act of 1935 as amended. Petitioner has advanced no convincing argument on this point. Section 216 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the predecessor of section 106 of the Revenue Act of 1935, has been held constitutional. Allied Agents, Inc. v. United States, 26 Fed. Supp. 98; certiorari denied, 308 U. S. 561. We are of the opinion that Allied Agents, Inc., supra, was correctly decided, and hereby hold that its scope extends to section 106 of the Revenue Act of 1935 as amended.

Decision will he entered for respondent.

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

Related

L. & C. Mayers Co. v. Commissioner
45 B.T.A. 528 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 B.T.A. 528, 1941 BTA LEXIS 1113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-c-mayers-co-v-commissioner-bta-1941.