- 26 -
(the multiplicand), however, differed as between the income,
estate, and gift taxes, on the one hand, and all other taxes on
the other hand. The multiplicand for the former group was the
amount of the deficiency in tax. See, e.g., 1939 Code sec.
293(b). For all other taxes, the multiplicand was the amount of
tax due. See sec. 3612(d)(2), I.R.C. 1939. For the 1954 Code,
as stated in the report of the Senate Finance Committee, Congress
chose the income tax model for all taxes for which returns are
due. The 1939 provision, section 293(b), provided as follows:
Fraud.--If any part of any deficiency is due to fraud
with intent to evade tax, then 50 per centum of the
total amount of the deficiency (in addition to such
deficiency) shall be so assessed, collected, and paid,
in lieu of the 50 per centum addition to the tax
provided in section 3612(d)(2).
The term “deficiency” was defined in section 271 of the 1939 Code
much as it is defined both in the 1954 Code and today, and much
as the term “underpayment” is defined in section 6664(a). I do
not read any temporal qualification into the multiplicand in the
1939 Code income tax fraud equation, and, for that reason, I do
not think that Congress intended one to exist today. Such a
qualification would have been a significant change, and I think
that the lack of any mention of such a change in the legislative
history is persuasive that one was not intended.
With respect to the text of section 6663, the object of the
adjectival prepositional phrase “of tax required to be shown on a
return” is the immediately preceding noun “underpayment”. The
phrase does not modify the second use of the noun “underpayment”
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011