Swallows Holding, Ltd. - Page 75

                                        -31-                                          
               receiving the benefit of such deductions by the                        
               provisions of section 233 of the Revenue Acts of 1928                  
               and 1932, because none of its returns for the periods                  
               involved was timely filed.  The gist of his contention                 
               is that the words in those sections “in the manner                     
               prescribed in this title” embrace timely filing of                     
               returns within their meaning and that, consequently,                   
               deductions are allowable to a foreign corporation only                 
               when its returns are filed within the time specified in                
               section 235 of the Revenue Acts of 1928 and 1932,                      
               supra.  Under this section, 235, petitioner should have                
               filed its returns for the periods involved on or before                
               June 15 of each of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and                     
               1934, but did not file any returns until February 21,                  
               1936, when it filed returns for all the periods.  The                  
               respondent argues that as a consequence of such                        
               untimely filing of the returns the petitioner is not                   
               entitled to the deductions of the expenses involved and                
               that the tax should be computed upon its gross income.                 
               We do not agree with respondent’s contention.  It                      
               is unnecessary to assign any reason for such conclusion                
               other than to say that our decision on this point is                   
               clearly controlled by the holding of the Board in                      
               Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co., Ltd.,                           
               promulgated October 4, 1938, 36 B.T.A. No. 94.                         
               Accordingly we hold that petitioner is entitled to the                 
               deduction of the expenses as set out in the above                      
               tabulation and that respondent erred in computing                      
               petitioner’s taxes on the basis of its gross income.                   
               [Mills, Spence & Co. v. Commissioner, supra; fn. ref.                  
               omitted.]                                                              
               D.   Am. Inv. and Gen. Trust Co.                                       
               In Am. Inv. and Gen. Trust Co. v. Commissioner, a Memorandum           
          Opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals dated April 13, 1939, the               
          Board again applied its holding in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading             
          Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938).  The Board found that            
          the taxpayer, a foreign corporation, had not filed its 1929 and             
          1930 Federal income tax returns timely.  The Commissioner again             







Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011