Powell v. Commissioner

1959 T.C. Memo. 36, 18 T.C.M. 170, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 211
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 26, 1959
DocketDocket Nos. 61174, 64655.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1959 T.C. Memo. 36 (Powell 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
Powell v. Commissioner, 1959 T.C. Memo. 36, 18 T.C.M. 170, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 211 (tax 1959).

Opinion

Clyde L. Powell v. Commissioner.
Powell v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 61174, 64655.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1959-36; 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 211; 18 T.C.M. (CCH) 170; T.C.M. (RIA) 59036;
February 26, 1959

*211 Held, respondent has not sustained his burden of proving that the income tax returns filed by petitioner for the taxable years 1944 to 1949, inclusive, were false or fraudulent returns with intent to evade tax. Held, further, the deficiencies and additions to the tax are all barred by the statute of limitations.

Daniel B. Maher, Esq., 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Paul E. Waring, Esq., for the respondent.

ARUNDELL

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

*212 ARUNDELL, Judge: In these consolidated proceedings, the respondent determined deficiencies in income tax and additions to the tax under sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 for the calendar years as follows:

Additions to the Tax
Dkt. No.YearDeficiency § 293(b) § 294(d)(1)(A) § 294(d)(2)
611741945$ 3,964.10$ 1,982.05$ 275.24$ 235.92
61174194616,982.558,491.281,191.151,020.99
61174194716,951.978,475.991,183.361,014.31
61174194842,015.3121,106.103,589.592,533.83
64655194913,426.286,798.051,244.99829.98

As more fully set forth in our findings, the respondent determined that petitioner received additional unreported taxable income for each of the taxable years and, in addition, he disallowed certain deductions claimed by petitioner on his returns for traveling expenses, contributions, interest, and taxes. All of the deficiencies and all of the additions to the tax are in controversy. Petitioner, by an amendment to the petitions, pleads the statute of limitations for all the years. In his brief, the respondent concedes that, except for fraud, the assessment and collection*213 of the proposed deficiencies for each of the taxable years here involved are barred by the statute of limitations.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts are stipulated and they are so found.

Petitioner is an individual. At the time he filed his petition in Docket No. 61174, he was residing in Coral Gables, Florida. In Docket No. 64655, he alleged that his residence was in Buffalo, Missouri. At the time of the hearing, he had a temporary residence in Pasadena, California. He filed United States individual income tax returns for each of the taxable years here involved with the then collector of internal revenue for the district of St. Louis, Missouri.

Petitioner was born on March 2, 1896, in Salem, Missouri. He attended 3 years of high school in Salem. During World War I he served for a period of 17 months with the Ambulance Division in France where he was attached to Base Hospital No. 28. He was discharged in May 1919. During the year 1920, petitioner entered the real estate business in Kansas City, Missouri, and was associated with W. L. Morrison Investment Company as a broker on a commission basis. During the year 1925 and part of the year 1926 he was in the building and real*214 estate business in Florida and, because of the depression in Florida, he went to St. Louis, Missouri, in the latter part of 1926 and became associated with LaClede Bond & Mortgage Company as a mortgage loan broker, where he remained until September 28, 1934.

During the years 1933 and 1934, petitioner acquired 10 first mortgages valued at $54,000 on real estate located in St. Louis, Missouri.

On September 28, 1934, petitioner filed an application for employment with the Federal Housing Administration (sometimes referred to hereinafter as F.H.A.) in Washington, D.C. On October 20, 1934, he was employed by the F.H.A. as an appraiser in the district director's office in St. Louis, Missouri, at a salary of $2,600. On December 1, 1934, he was transferred to the position of assistant field director, mortgage and insurance division, F.H.A., Washington, D.C., at a salary of $5,200 per annum. He had in his possession at that time approximately $2,000 of $3,000 in cash in addition to the $54,000 of first mortgages, which were left with a former business associate, William D. Orthwein, in St. Louis for him to service.

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

Related

Helvering v. Taylor
293 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court, 1935)
Imburgia v. Commissioner
22 T.C. 1002 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)
Shaw v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 561 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)
Halle v. Commissioner
7 T.C. 245 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Rickard v. Commissioner
15 B.T.A. 316 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
KERBAUCH v. COMMISSIONER
29 B.T.A. 1014 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1959 T.C. Memo. 36, 18 T.C.M. 170, 1959 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-commissioner-tax-1959.