Estate of Emanuel Trompeter, Deceased, Robin Carol Trompeter Gonzalez and Janet Ilene Trompeter Polacheck, Co-Executors - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          the Revenue Act of 1942, ch. 619, 56 Stat. 798.  The Supreme                
          Court held in Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., supra, that an              
          NOL carryback eliminated a deficiency for a prior year, but did             
          not eliminate the interest that accrued thereon.  The Senate                
          Finance Committee report stated that                                        
                    A taxpayer entitled to a carry-back of a net                      
               operating loss * * * will not be able to determine the                 
               deduction on account of such carry-back until the close                
               of the future taxable year in which he sustains the net                
               operating loss * * *.  He must therefore file his                      
               return and pay his tax without regard to such                          
               deduction, and must file a claim for refund at the                     
               close of the succeeding taxable year when he is able to                
               determine the amount of such carry-back.  * * *                        
               [S. Rept. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., at 123 (1942),                   
               1942-2 C.B. 504, 597.]                                                 
               This Court subsequently extended the principle enunciated in           
          C.V.L. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, to an NOL that was carried             
          back to a year in which the taxpayer was subject to an addition             
          to tax for fraud.  The Court held in Petterson v. Commissioner,             
          19 T.C. 486 (1952), that the original deficiency was the proper             
          base for computing the fraud penalty, and that the NOL carryback            
          did not reduce this deficiency for purposes of that computation.            
               This and every other Court that has considered whether an              
          NOL carryback reduces an underpayment for purposes of computing             
          a penalty or an addition to tax has concluded that the principle            
          expressed in C.V.L. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, is correct;               
          namely, that the NOL carryback may not reduce the underpayment.             
          See, e.g., Arc Elec. Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 923 F.2d 1005,            
          1009 (2d Cir. 1991), affg. on this issue and revg. and remanding            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011