- 3 -
(See note#1), since in Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co.v.
Smietanka, 225 U.S. 509, (at pages 518&519) that Court
held that “The word (income) must be given the same
meaning in all of the income tax acts of Congress that
was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act
(1909).“Therefore, since I had no earnings in any year
that would have been taxable under the Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909 as “income,” I can only swear to
having “zero” income in 1995.* * *
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency for the 1995
taxable year and petitioner filed a petition with this Court. On
August 14, 2000, this Court ordered that, with the exception of
an issue relating to the period of limitations, petitioner was
deemed to have conceded any issue that could arise from any of
the determinations in the notice of deficiency for the 1995
taxable year.
At trial, the Court ruled that the notice of deficiency for
the 1995 taxable year was issued timely for the reasons set forth
below. Petitioner had averred generally that the notice of
deficiency was not issued within the 3-year period set forth in
section 6501(a). Even if we take the filing date to be April 15,
1996, as petitioner claims, rather than the received date of
March 12, 1997, the notice of deficiency was issued on May 10,
2000, well within the 6-year period which is applicable when
there is an omission from gross income of more than 25 percent.
Sec. 6501(e). Here, the deemed deficiency obviously resulted in
an omission of more than 25 percent of gross income over the zero
amount reported in petitioner’s 1995 return. Therefore, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011