RATLIFF v. COMMISSIONER

Board of Tax Appeals

RATLIFF v. COMMISSIONER

13 B.T.A. 644, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3210

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedSeptember 28, 1928

DocketDocket No. 14135.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 B.T.A. 644 (RATLIFF 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

RATLIFF v. COMMISSIONER, 13 B.T.A. 644, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3210 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[646]*646OPINION.

Love:

The Board has heretofore held that where a joint return is filed for a husband and wife under the Revenue Act of 1921, they may not elect after the passage of the date for filing of a return to file separate returns and. have their tax liability computed upon the basis of such separate returns. R. Downes, Jr., 5 B. T. A. 1029; J. W. Macon, 7 B. T. A. 450; and G. P. Foster, 7 B. T. A. 559. See also Grant v. Rose, 24 Fed. (2d) 115.

While the answers to questions 3 and 4 on the return, as altered, are contradictory, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner intended to include what he believed to be all income of himself and his wife in the return filed March 8, 1923, his belief being at that time that the total amount of such income was $5,830.17, subject to a personal exemption of $2,000.

[647]*647The petitioner seeks to escape the effect of the authorities above citech and numerous others of similar import, by the contention that he did not elect to file a joint return, but was led to do so by the revenue agent’s error in computation of net income.

While we may concede that, had the petitioner realized that a saving could have been effected by the filing of separate returns for his wife and himself, such returns would have been filed, the fact remains, as revealed by our findings, that he consciously and intentionally filed a joint return. This Avas induced, it is true, by a belief that the total tax would not be greater than it would be under separate returns by himself and wife, but it was a freely elected act and the petitioner is bound by it.

Bacon v. Hopkins, 27 Fed. (2d) 140, is distinguishable, the issue therein having been the taxpayer’s right to file originally so-called community property returns for his wife and himself, while the issue herein is whether or not a taxpayer, having elected to file a joint return, can substitute the alternative after the passage of the date for filing of the return, upon discovery that his original choice was an unfortunate one.

There is no question of mala fides on the part of the revenue agent, and, as we see it, no necessity for discussion of his possible status as an agent of the petitioner in the preparation of the return.

Judqment toill he entered for the respondent.

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

[646]*646OPINION.

Love:

The Board has heretofore held that where a joint return is filed for a husband and wife under the Revenue Act of 1921, they may not elect after the passage of the date for filing of a return to file separate returns and. have their tax liability computed upon the basis of such separate returns. R. Downes, Jr., 5 B. T. A. 1029; J. W. Macon, 7 B. T. A. 450; and G. P. Foster, 7 B. T. A. 559. See also Grant v. Rose, 24 Fed. (2d) 115.

While the answers to questions 3 and 4 on the return, as altered, are contradictory, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner intended to include what he believed to be all income of himself and his wife in the return filed March 8, 1923, his belief being at that time that the total amount of such income was $5,830.17, subject to a personal exemption of $2,000.

[647]*647The petitioner seeks to escape the effect of the authorities above citech and numerous others of similar import, by the contention that he did not elect to file a joint return, but was led to do so by the revenue agent’s error in computation of net income.

While we may concede that, had the petitioner realized that a saving could have been effected by the filing of separate returns for his wife and himself, such returns would have been filed, the fact remains, as revealed by our findings, that he consciously and intentionally filed a joint return. This Avas induced, it is true, by a belief that the total tax would not be greater than it would be under separate returns by himself and wife, but it was a freely elected act and the petitioner is bound by it.

Bacon v. Hopkins, 27 Fed. (2d) 140, is distinguishable, the issue therein having been the taxpayer’s right to file originally so-called community property returns for his wife and himself, while the issue herein is whether or not a taxpayer, having elected to file a joint return, can substitute the alternative after the passage of the date for filing of the return, upon discovery that his original choice was an unfortunate one.

There is no question of mala fides on the part of the revenue agent, and, as we see it, no necessity for discussion of his possible status as an agent of the petitioner in the preparation of the return.

Judqment toill he entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 B.T.A. 644, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratliff-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack