United States v. W. Keith Woodmansee and Teresa Woodmansee
Opinion
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
In 1971 and 1972, appellant-taxpayer amended his tax returns for 1964-1967, 1 claiming for the first time credit for foreign income taxes paid in 1961-1963. The Internal Revenue Service allowed the credits and granted refunds. Subsequently, it decided this determination was incorrect and sued to recover the sums refunded. The district court granted summary judgment for ap-pellee (388 F.Supp. 36), 2 and taxpayer appealed. We reverse.
During the years 1961-1963, taxpayer lived in Germany; his entire income for these years was exempt from U.S. income tax. He did, however, pay income tax to Germany. § 901 of the Internal Revenue Code permits a United States taxpayer to take either a credit or deduction for foreign income taxes. Under § 904(c), the credit may be carried back 2 years and forward 5 years; 3 the carryover is available only if “the taxpayer chooses to have the benefits of this subpart.” Deduction treatment is allowed only in the year the foreign tax is paid. 4
Appellant first indicated which treatment — deduction or credit — he preferred when he filed his amended returns in 1971 and 1972. For the years 1961-1963, appellant had no income, taxable under U.S. law, against which to claim either a deduction or a credit. In 1964, 1965, and 1967, he apparently was unaware he could claim a credit for the foreign taxes previously paid. The issue before us is whether his 1971-1972 amendments were too late.
The government argues that under I.R.C. § 6511(a) a taxpayer must elect credit treatment within three years of the year in which the return is filed. Appellant coun *1304 ters that the ten-year limitation period of § 6511(d)(3) is applicable.
There is merit in appellant’s argument that the language of the statute supports his position. Yet, on the other hand, the legislative history shows Congress intended the three-year limitation period to be applied as a general rule. S.R.No. 1393, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 U.S.Cong. & Admin.News pp. 3770, 3778-79, 3784-85 (1960); H.Rep. No. 1358, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 1960-2 Cum. Bull. 865, 869. We do not decide which is the appropriate general rule, however, for here we are faced with an unusual twist of fact: choosing between a credit and a deduction was an empty formality for appellant inasmuch as his entire income was exempt from U.S. tax. 5 Thus, appellant had no taxable income to deduct from and no federal tax to take a credit against. Under these particular facts, 6 equity dictates the ten-year limitation period be applied. 7
Finally, appellant’s amended return for 1967 is challenged as untimely because he did not make a § 901 election for 1967 until 1972. 8 The government argues § 904(c) also requires the taxpayer to elect § 901 treatment for any year to which a credit is carried 9 and appellant’s failure to do so within three years bars his claim. The election requirement asserted by the government is again an empty formality. Therefore, the ten-year statute of limitations should have been applied.
The order granting summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
578 F.2d 1302 (United States v. W. Keith Woodmansee and Teresa Woodmansee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.