Swallows Holding, Ltd. - Page 80

                                        -36-                                          
               claimed, which represented expense incurred in                         
               connection with the earning of the income taxed.  The                  
               deductions are denied merely because they were not                     
               claimed in a return properly filed until after the                     
               deficiency assessment had been made against taxpayer                   
               upon a return filed for him by the Commissioner in                     
               which no deductions were allowed.  We think, however,                  
               that when return was filed by the Commissioner for the                 
               taxpayer, he should have given him the benefit of                      
               proper deductions for expense of doing business, of                    
               which he had been notified by the return which taxpayer                
               had attempted to file with his agent, or, at least,                    
               that taxpayer should be allowed such deductions when,                  
               upon the assessment of a deficiency against him, he                    
               shows that prior to its assessment he attempted in good                
               faith to file a return in which such deductions were                   
               claimed.  This is nothing but elementary justice, and                  
               we find nothing in the statute which forbids it.  The                  
               return made by the Commissioner was clearly not based                  
               upon the best available information.                                   
                    While there is a specific penalty of 25 per centum                
               fixed for failure to file tax returns, Section 291,                    
               Revenue Act of 1928, * * * there is no provision that                  
               there shall be an added penalty in the form of not                     
               allowing the delinquent taxpayer deductions to which it                
               otherwise would be entitled.  The Board held in                        
               Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner,                 
               38 B.T.A. 711:  “Inasmuch as separate sections deal                    
               with “manner” and “time,” we think it highly improbable                
               that Congress ever intended to include the element of                  
               time in the section dealing primarily with the manner                  
               of filing.  We hold, therefore, that the mere fact the                 
               return was not filed within the time prescribed by                     
               section 235 does not, under the circumstances here                     
               presented, preclude the allowance of deductions                        
               claimed.”  [Ardbern Co. v. Commissioner, 120 F.2d at                   
               426.]                                                                  
               The Board also followed Taylor Sec., Inc. v. Commissioner,             
          40 B.T.A. 696 (1939), in Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, 42 B.T.A.            
          1248 (1940).  There, the taxpayer was a foreign corporation that            
          on June 15, 1935, filed a 1934 personal holding company return              
          (Form 1120H) reporting income consisting only of dividends                  





Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011