- 61 -
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 and 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 assess 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).
The undisputed facts of this case establish that (1)
petitioner’s original return understated his and his wife’s
income tax liability for 1999, and (2) there was a deficiency in
income tax for 1999 resulting from that understatement. Given
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011