-44-
Respondent argues in this case that the Court in Espinosa v.
Commissioner, supra at 156, interpreted Anglo-Am. Direct Tea
Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938), to hold solely
that a foreign corporation’s (or nonresident alien’s) filing of a
Federal income tax return after the due date set forth in section
6072 (and its predecessors) is not the only factor to consider in
determining whether the corporation (or alien) is entitled to
deduct its expenses. We disagree. The Court in Espinosa on the
referenced page made the following observation as to Anglo-Am.
Direct Tea Trading Co.: “while a terminal date does exist [after
which a foreign corporation or nonresident alien can no longer
claim the benefit of deductions by filing a Federal income tax
return], the timely filing requirements of section 6072(c) are
not determinative as to whether a taxpayer [the corporation or
alien] is entitled to the benefit of deductions.” The Court in
Espinosa did not limit Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. to that
observation or to any other point. In fact, as the Board
explained its holding in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. shortly
after rendering it:
In the Anglo-American Co. case, it was held that
the phrase in section 233 of the Revenue Acts of 1928
and 1932, “in the manner prescribed in this title”, did
not mean within the time prescribed in the titles of
the respective acts and the allowance of the credits
and deductions otherwise allowable by such acts was not
dependent under section 233 on the filing of returns
within the time prescribed by said acts. [Taylor Sec.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. at 702.]
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011