- 18 -
may be an implied statement of the facts relating to the
taxpayer's receipt of the funds, which, under the duty of
consistency, a taxpayer cannot later repudiate. Wentworth v.
Commissioner, 244 F.2d 874, 875 (9th Cir. 1957) (not reporting
the receipt of funds on an income tax return was a representation
that the funds were a loan repayment), affg. 25 T.C. 1210 (1956);
Doneghy v. Alexander, 118 F.2d 521, 524 (10th Cir. 1941) (not
reporting interest in a trust as income was a representation that
the taxpayer had zero basis in the trust); Portland Oil Co. v.
Commissioner, 109 F.2d 479, 485-486 (1st Cir. 1940) (not
reporting a sale in 1929 was a representation that the sale did
not occur in 1929), affg. 38 B.T.A. 757 (1938).10
10 Cf. Ross v. Commissioner, 169 F.2d 483, 496 (1st Cir.
1948), revg. and remanding a Memorandum Opinion of this Court
dated Feb. 10, 1947. In Ross, the taxpayer's position on his
earlier return was that his accrued salary was income when
received. On his later return, the taxpayer's position was that
he had constructively received his accrued salary in the earlier
year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit did not
estop the taxpayer from taking this position on the second return
because the taxpayer's change in position related to a question
of law, not a question of fact. Id. at 496. Also, unlike this
case, in Ross, the Commissioner had detailed information about
the accrued salaries before assessment of the earlier return was
barred by the statute of limitations and before the later return
was filed. Id. at 495-496. Thus, Ross is distinguishable from
this case.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011