Torland v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Torland v. Commissioner

11 B.T.A. 35, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3880

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 1928

DocketDocket No. 6019.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 11 B.T.A. 35 (Torland 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

Torland v. Commissioner, 11 B.T.A. 35, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3880 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[36]*36OPINION.

MoRris :

The return filed for the petitioner by his duly authorized agent was on its face a joint return filed pursuant to section 223 of the Revenue Act of 1921. The fact that the petitioner in his letter to the collector reserved the right later on to amend the report as his books showed it necessary does not, in our opinion, indicate that the agent exceeded his authority in preparing the return on that basis. Any taxpayer, whether he reserves the right or not, may file corrected figures upon the ascertainment that those already submitted are incorrect. If the return did not set forth all the taxable income of both husband and wife, that fact, when ascertained by the Commissioner or by either husband or wife, does not entitle either husband or wife to file another return on another basis. Downes v. Commissioner, 5 B. T. A. 1029. A joint return as provided for in section 223 of the Revenue Act of 1921, having been filed, and the tax computed on that basis, the petitioner can not subsequently file a separate return on the community property basis. Downes v. Commisioner, supra, and Cassiere v. Commisioner, 5 B. T. A. 1032.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

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

[36]*36OPINION.

MoRris :

The return filed for the petitioner by his duly authorized agent was on its face a joint return filed pursuant to section 223 of the Revenue Act of 1921. The fact that the petitioner in his letter to the collector reserved the right later on to amend the report as his books showed it necessary does not, in our opinion, indicate that the agent exceeded his authority in preparing the return on that basis. Any taxpayer, whether he reserves the right or not, may file corrected figures upon the ascertainment that those already submitted are incorrect. If the return did not set forth all the taxable income of both husband and wife, that fact, when ascertained by the Commissioner or by either husband or wife, does not entitle either husband or wife to file another return on another basis. Downes v. Commissioner, 5 B. T. A. 1029. A joint return as provided for in section 223 of the Revenue Act of 1921, having been filed, and the tax computed on that basis, the petitioner can not subsequently file a separate return on the community property basis. Downes v. Commisioner, supra, and Cassiere v. Commisioner, 5 B. T. A. 1032.

Judgment will be entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 B.T.A. 35, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torland-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack