Guillermo Baez Espinosa - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         

          and issued a notice of deficiency.  Thereafter, the corporation's           
          secretary filed a Form 1120 for the year in question.  The Board            
          held that the filing of Form 1120H did not satisfy the                      
          requirements of section 233 of the Revenue Acts of 1928 and 1932            
          because the personal holding company surtax was a separate and              
          distinct tax from the corporate income tax.  The Board went on to           
          distinguish its holding in Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co.            
          v. Commissioner, supra, noting that                                         
                    Undoubtedly a taxpayer may litigate a determination of            
               respondent on the basis of a return made by * * *                      
               [respondent].  But, a "return" filed by a taxpayer after               
               such a return has been prepared and filed for him by                   
               respondent, under the circumstances existing here, is a                
               nullity and does not comply with section 233, supra.  The              
               taxpayer can not thus take advantage from an alleged return            
               submitted by the taxpayer not only after respondent's filing           
               of its return * * * but also after the issuance of a notice            
               of deficiency. * * * [Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, 42                 
               B.T.A. at 1251.]                                                       
               The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the               
          Board of Tax Appeals.  However, rather than simply relying on               
          Taylor Sec., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, the Court of Appeals              
          for the Fourth Circuit placed emphasis on the fact that the                 
          taxpayer filed a return after the Commissioner had prepared a               
          substitute return for the taxpayer.  The Court stated:                      
                    The conclusion that the preparation of a return by                
               the Commissioner a reasonable time after the date it                   
               was due terminates the period in which the taxpayer may                
               enjoy the privilege of receiving deductions by filing                  
               its own return, is consistent not only with the                        
               intention of Congress * * * but also with                              
               considerations of sound administrative procedure and                   

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011