David Bruce Billings - Page 32

                                       - 32 -                                         
          meaning of the term “deficiency” set forth in section 301.6211-             
          1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs., applies for all purposes of the               

               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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011