Maxwell, Comr. of Revenue v. . Hinsdale

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Maxwell, Comr. of Revenue v. . Hinsdale

175 S.E. 847, 207 N.C. 37, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 372

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 19, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 847 (Maxwell, Comr. of Revenue v. . Hinsdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maxwell, Comr. of Revenue v. . Hinsdale, 175 S.E. 847, 207 N.C. 37, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 372 (N.C. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BeogdeN, J.

C. S., 7880 (155), provides that “a taxpayer may apply to tbe Commissioner of Revenue for revision of tax assessed against him at any time within three years from tbe time of tbe filing of tbe return or from tbe date of tbe notice of tbe assessment of any additional tax,” etc. Tbe record discloses that tbe taxpayer filed no claim with tbe Commissioner of Revenue for tbe revision of said tax until 30 December, 1932, which was more tban three years from tbe date required for tbe filing of income tax returns. Tbe taxpayer, however, asserts that tbe three-year limitation begins to run from tbe date of tbe redetermination by tbe Federal Government, as provided in C. S., Michie’s Code of 1931, 7880 (152), and that as such action was taken on 3 December, 1929, tbe claim is not barred. This contention, however, cannot be sustained for tbe reason that tbe statute of limitations above referred to is explicit and unequivocal. Moreover, tbe taxpayer is not saved by tbe application of C. S., 7880 (152), supra, for tbe reason that this statute provides that “such taxpayer, within thirty days after receipt of final determination by tbe United States Government of bis corrected net income, shall make return under oath or affirmation to tbe Commissioner of Revenue of such final determined income.” Tbe new return contení- *39 plated by tbe foregoing statute was not made by tbe bankrupt until 30 December, 1932. Therefore, there was a total failure to comply with the positive provision of the law. It was said in Association v. Strickland, 200 N. C., 630, 158 S. E., 110, that “the courts everywhere are in accord with the proposition that if a valid statutory method of determining a disputed question has been established, such remedy so provided is exclusive, and must be first resorted to, and in the manner specified therein.” See Mann v. North Carolina State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 206 N. C., 853.

Affirmed.

SciieNCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

BeogdeN, J.

C. S., 7880 (155), provides that “a taxpayer may apply to tbe Commissioner of Revenue for revision of tax assessed against him at any time within three years from tbe time of tbe filing of tbe return or from tbe date of tbe notice of tbe assessment of any additional tax,” etc. Tbe record discloses that tbe taxpayer filed no claim with tbe Commissioner of Revenue for tbe revision of said tax until 30 December, 1932, which was more tban three years from tbe date required for tbe filing of income tax returns. Tbe taxpayer, however, asserts that tbe three-year limitation begins to run from tbe date of tbe redetermination by tbe Federal Government, as provided in C. S., Michie’s Code of 1931, 7880 (152), and that as such action was taken on 3 December, 1929, tbe claim is not barred. This contention, however, cannot be sustained for tbe reason that tbe statute of limitations above referred to is explicit and unequivocal. Moreover, tbe taxpayer is not saved by tbe application of C. S., 7880 (152), supra, for tbe reason that this statute provides that “such taxpayer, within thirty days after receipt of final determination by tbe United States Government of bis corrected net income, shall make return under oath or affirmation to tbe Commissioner of Revenue of such final determined income.” Tbe new return contení- *39 plated by tbe foregoing statute was not made by tbe bankrupt until 30 December, 1932. Therefore, there was a total failure to comply with the positive provision of the law. It was said in Association v. Strickland, 200 N. C., 630, 158 S. E., 110, that “the courts everywhere are in accord with the proposition that if a valid statutory method of determining a disputed question has been established, such remedy so provided is exclusive, and must be first resorted to, and in the manner specified therein.” See Mann v. North Carolina State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 206 N. C., 853.

Affirmed.

SciieNCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 847, 207 N.C. 37, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-comr-of-revenue-v-hinsdale-nc-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack