- 27 -
taxpayer’s husband’s tax return was separate from the taxpayer’s
tax return. We concluded as follows (id. at 789-790):
This Court and the circuit courts of appeals have
specifically held that for the purposes of applying section
275(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, consideration may only
be given to the return of the particular taxpayer and that
the return of another taxpayer may not be considered.
* * * * * * *
Petitioner’s complaint that “it does not seem equitable
to deny a taxpayer the benefit of the statute of limitations
merely because of a failure to duplicate the purely
mechanical computation of gross sales less cost of sales to
show the gross income amount which has already been fairly
reported” is also without merit. Section 275(c) is not
limited to situations involving bad faith. * * *
The gross income stated in petitioner’s income tax
return is therefore limited to the $5,014.60 shown therein
and does not include any amounts stated in her husband’s
return.
In Switzer v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 759 (1953), the
taxpayer-husbands (H’s) were partners whose partnership interests
constituted community property under California law. Each H and
each of the taxpayer-wives (W’s) filed separate timely tax
returns for 1944 and 1945. The partnership filed timely
information returns for these years. The notices of deficiency
were sent to the H’s and W’s more than 3 years, but not more than
5 years, after the respective tax returns were filed. See id. at
761. The taxpayers argued that the partnership’s information
returns should be treated as being part of the taxpayers’
individual tax returns, to the extent of their partnership
interests, in the same manner as a Schedule C is treated as being
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011