- 25 -
had sustained the Commissioner's determination that the
contribution was untimely because it found "no evidence
to show that delivery of the check to the Trustee occurred
on or prior to the expiration of the statutory period on
March 1, 1946." Dick Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, 18 T.C.
at 835. The Court of Appeals reversed this Court and held
that
proof that the letter and check were given to
Dick on the fifty-ninth day, when there remained
ample time for the check to be delivered to the
Trustee, either personally or in the ordinary
course of the mails, within the sixty day limit,
gave rise to a presumption that they were so
delivered. Since there is no evidence in the
record in the slightest degree inconsistent with
this presumption, it must stand, and the taxpayer
is entitled to the deduction.
Dick Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, 205 F.2d at 66. Thus,
the Court of Appeals utilized a presumption "'that every
man, in his private and official character, does his duty,
until the contrary is proved'". Id. (quoting Bank of the
United States v. Dandridge, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 64, 69
(1827)).
The Court of Appeals also found that the employer
"delivered the check to the [pension] Committee and the
latter gave it to Dick 'for delivery' to the Trustee."
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011