- 17 -
Internal Revenue at Baltimore, Maryland. However, in refusing to
accept the returns the revenue agent failed to instruct the
taxpayer how to properly file them; he simply stated that the
returns were improperly executed. The Board sustained the
Commissioner's disallowance of deductions. The Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit reversed. However, the same Court of
Appeals later noted in Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, 125 F.2d at
912, that Ardbern was distinguishable:
A substantially different factual situation is
presented in the case before us. Here the Commissioner
prepared a return only after he had unsuccessfully made
repeated requests to the taxpayer to do so, and only
after the taxpayer had flouted all of these requests. *
* *
From these cases we make the following observations.
First, although section 874(a) contains no express time limit, at
some point there exists a terminal date, after which a taxpayer
can no longer claim the benefit of deductions by filing a return.
Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, 42 B.T.A. 1248 (1940); Taylor Sec.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. 696 (1939). Second, while a
terminal date does exist, the timely filing requirements of
section 6072(c) are not determinative as to whether a taxpayer is
entitled to the benefit of deductions. Anglo-American Direct Tea
Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938). Third, absent
some compelling equitable considerations, such as those existing
in Ardbern Co. v. Commissioner, supra, a taxpayer cannot claim
the benefit of deductions by filing a return after the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011