Ludwig Littauer & Co. v. Commissioner

37 B.T.A. 840, 1938 BTA LEXIS 976
CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals
DecidedMay 13, 1938
DocketDocket No,. 91349.
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 37 B.T.A. 840 (Ludwig Littauer & 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
Ludwig Littauer & Co. v. Commissioner, 37 B.T.A. 840, 1938 BTA LEXIS 976 (bta 1938).

Opinion

OPINION.

Sternhagen :

The Commissioner has filed a motion to dismiss “for lack of jurisdiction in that no final determination of a deficiency has been made by the Commissioner and no notice of a deficiency has been sent by the Commissioner to the petitioner, as provided by section 272 of the Revenue Act of 1936.” Under date of August 21, 1937, he sent to the petitioner by registered mail a notice of his finding that the petitioner intended to hinder and prevent the collection of tax justly due for the period January 1 to August 21, 1937, and that, pursuant to the authority granted by section 146 of the Revenue Act of 1936, he declared immediately due and payable the taxes for such period; that an assessment had been made of a “total deficiency” of $94,435.85, which amount was declared immediately due and payable, and immediate payment thereof was requested upon presentation of notice by the collector. Within ninety days thereafter the petition was filed. The petitioner regards the notice as a notice of deficiency which supports a proceeding for redetermination in the Board.

Since the notice expressly states that it is sent by virtue of section 146, it may properly be regarded as taking its character from that [841]*841section.1 The section has been repeatedly enacted in its present form since its first appearance as section 250 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1918.2 It should not be confused with section 272, prescribing the normal mode for the determination and assessment of a deficiency, nor with section 273, prescribing the system for making and contesting. an ordinary jeopardy assessment. Section 146 supplements these two sections to provide a means of protecting the Government from the loss of tax through the imminent disappearance of the means of payment. Unlike sections 272 and 273, it provides the extraordinary remedy of terminating the taxable year before the year would normally close and estimating the tax, which becomes immediately due and payable. In the body of the subdivision the word jeopardy is not used, but the subdivision is entitled “Tax IN Jeopardy.” Both the substance of the subdivision and its title indicate an intention to supply a remedy in emergency more extreme than that covered by section 273.

It has been consistently held that the Board has no jurisdiction to weigh the circumstances which the Commissioner officially regards as denoting jeopardy sufficient to impel him to safeguard the revenue. [842]*842California Associated, Raisin Co., 1 B. T.A. 1251; Foundation Co. v. United States, 15 Fed. Sup. 229. After the expiration of a normal tax year the Commissioner, if he believes assessment or collection of a deficiency will be jeopardized by delay, must immediately assess, and may collect. Thus he is empowered in such circumstances to deprive the taxpayer of the normal procedure of contesting the determination of a deficiency before payment. It is only after the taxpayer receives the required notice of deficiency for the tax year that he may contest the jeopardy assessment which has already been made, and it is only by filing a bond that collection may be stayed pending the proceeding.

Since section 146, subdivision (a), presupposes a more exigent situation of jeopardy than that covered by section 273 — a situation so critical as to require immediate protective action rather than to await the close of the normal taxable year and the determination of a statutory deficiency — it can not be supposed that Congress intended to be more lenient, by permitting the taxpayer to avoid payment during litigation, than under the less perilous circumstances denoted by the jeopardy assessment of section 273. In both situations the Commissioner may assure collection without awaiting the Board’s redetermination. Section 273 requires the Commissioner to send a notice of deficiency upon which the taxpayer may institute his proceeding before the Board. There is no provision of the statute which with equal clarity requires a similar notice of deficiency following the use of the procedure of section 146. The notice required by that section is a notice of the finding that collection is in peril and the declaration of the termination of the taxable year. Any statement in such notice which might be made as to the amount of tax liability is but a provisional statement of the amount which must be presently paid as a protection against the impossibility of collection.

In this view of the nature of the notice given under section 146, the Bureau of Internal Revenue has published a ruling (G. C. M. 17195, XV-2 C. B. 107) which contains the following concluding sentence:

* * * After the end of tlie calendar year, the taxpayer may file a complete return for the entire 12-month period in order that a determination may he made by the Commissioner of any deficiency in tax, or any overpayment or overassessment of tax.

Government counsel reiterate this view in the present proceeding. Thus it appears that notwithstanding a finding, declaration, and collection under section 146 covering a tax for a short period, there still remains the proper tax period, whether twelve months or shorter, for the determination of tax liability with any resulting deficiency or overpayment. See Helvering v. Morgans, Inc., 293 U. S. 121. This is supported by the ensuing subdivisions of section 146, wherein [843]*843it appears that a taxpayer may escape the rigor of immediate payment of the short term tax by giving security that at the proper time a correct annual return will be filed and a correct annual tax will be paid. It is only after such annual period expires that a determination of correct tax liability can be made, and not until then can it be determined whether there is a statutory deficiency or perhaps a refund of all or part of the amount already collected under section 146. In such circumstances, the amount called a “deficiency” in the notice sent to the petitioner here is not an amount finally determined as a deficiency, and the proceeding to contest it is at this stage premature. The Board is without jurisdiction and the proceeding must be dismissed.

Reviewed by the Board.

Dismissed.

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

Related

Clark v. Campbell
501 F.2d 108 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
Jones v. Commissioner
62 T.C. 1 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Williams v. United States
373 F. Supp. 71 (D. Nevada, 1973)
Musso v. Commissioner
1973 T.C. Memo. 181 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Riley v. Commissioner
1973 T.C. Memo. 180 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Sanzogno v. Commissioner
60 T.C. No. 39 (U.S. Tax Court, 1973)
Irving v. Gray
479 F.2d 20 (Second Circuit, 1973)
Parrish v. Daly
350 F. Supp. 735 (S.D. Indiana, 1972)
Rambo v. United States
353 F. Supp. 1021 (W.D. Kentucky, 1972)
Schreck v. United States
301 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland, 1969)
Puritan Church-The Church of America v. Commissioner
10 T.C.M. 485 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Ludwig Littauer & Co. v. Commissioner
37 B.T.A. 840 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 B.T.A. 840, 1938 BTA LEXIS 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludwig-littauer-co-v-commissioner-bta-1938.