- 12 -
section 874(a), or its predecessors, in the context of an
untimely submitted return.8 However, more than half a century
ago, the Board of Tax Appeals wrestled with the issue in a series
of cases that arose under the predecessor to section 882(c)(2).
Because of the similarity of sections 874(a) and 882(c)(2), in
both language and the intent of the provisions, we interpret them
in pari materia.
In Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38
B.T.A. 711 (1938), a revenue agent prepared overdue returns for a
foreign corporation, without notifying the corporation, 3 days
before the corporation filed its own returns. Apparently, the
returns prepared by the revenue agent were never submitted to, or
accepted by, the Commissioner. Nevertheless, the Commissioner
determined that the corporation was not entitled to any
deductions because the returns were not filed timely. The Board
of Tax Appeals, the predecessor of this Court (sometimes herein
referred to as the Board), held that section 233 of the Revenue
Act of 1928, ch. 852, 45 Stat. 849, and Revenue Act of 1932, ch.
209, 47 Stat. 230, did not include a requirement that the returns
8 See, however, Brittingham v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 373,
408-409 (1976), affd. per curiam 598 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1979);
Inverworld, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-301; Ross v.
Commissioner, 44 B.T.A. 1 (1941), vacated and remanded per
stipulation 43-2 USTC par. 9686 (4th Cir. 1943); Roerich v.
Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 567 (1938), affd. 115 F.2d 39 (D.C. Cir.
1940); Furst v. Commissioner, 19 B.T.A. 471 (1930). In these
cases, no returns were filed, and the question whether returns
were timely was not at issue.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011