- 32 -
meaning of the term “deficiency” set forth in section 301.6211-
1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs., applies for all purposes of the
Code.
10(...continued)
Indeed, as this Court recently has noted, Hillsboro
National Bank v. Commissioner, 460 U. S. 370, 378-380,
n. 10 (1983), the Internal Revenue Code does not
explicitly provide either for a taxpayer’s filing, or
for the Commissioner’s acceptance, of an amended
return; instead, an amended return is a creature of
administrative origin and grace. Thus, when Congress
provided for assessment at any time in the case of a
false or fraudulent “return,” it plainly included by
this language a false or fraudulent original return.
In this connection, we note that until the decision of
the Tenth Circuit in Dowell v. Commissioner, 614 F. 2d
1263 (1980), cert. pending, No. 82-1873, courts
consistently had held that the operation of � 6501 and
its predecessors turned on the nature of the taxpayer’s
original, and not his amended, return.8
8The significance of the original, and not the
amended, return has been stressed in other, but
related, contexts. It thus has been held consistently
that the filing of an amended return in a nonfraudulent
situation does not serve to extend the period within
which the Commissioner may access a deficiency. See,
e.g., Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 172
(1934); National Paper Products Co. v. Helvering, 293
U. S. 183 (1934); National Refining Co. v.
Commissioner, 1 B. T. A. 236 (1924). It also has been
held that the filing of an amended return does not
serve to reduce the period within which the
Commissioner may assess taxes where the original return
omitted enough income to trigger the operation of the
extended limitations period provided by � 6501(e) or
its predecessors. See, e.g., Houston v. Commissioner,
38 T. C. 486 (1962); Goldring v. Commissioner, 20 T. C.
79 (1953). And the period of limitations for filing a
refund claim under the predecessor of � 6511(a) begins
to run on the filing of the original, not the amended,
return. Kaltreider Construction, Inc. v. United
States, 303 F.2d 366, 368 (CA3), cert. denied, 371 U.
S. 877 (1962).
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011