- 30 -
full when it is due, nor does it defer a taxpayer's duty to pay
the tax promptly. Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., 338 U.S. 561
(1950).2
Any distinction between the calculation of an estate tax
liability and the calculation of an income tax liability has no
bearing on the taxpayer's statutory obligation to file an
accurate and timely return. The reasoning in the line of cases
holding that a net operating loss (NOL) carryback will not reduce
the amount of an income tax underpayment for purposes of
computing a penalty or an addition to tax was not based on the
unique nature of the income tax.
The rationale in C.V.L. Corp. v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 812
(1951), is not based on the fact that each taxable year is a
separate year for income tax purposes as the majority claims.
Majority op. p. 6. In that case we upheld a delinquency penalty
even though the deficiency had been eliminated by an NOL
carryback because the obligation to file a timely return was
2In Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., 338 U.S. 561, 565
(1950), the Court stated:
The problem with which we are concerned in this case is
whether the interest on a validly assessed deficiency
is abated when the deficiency itself is abated by the
carryback of a net operating loss.
* * * The subsequent cancellation of the duty to
pay this assessed deficiency does not cancel in like
manner the duty to pay the interest on that deficiency.
From the date the original return was to be filed until
the date the deficiency was actually assessed, the
taxpayer had a positive obligation to the United
States: a duty to pay its tax. * * * [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011