-88-
125 F.2d 906 (4th Cir. 1942), affg. 42 B.T.A. 1248 (1940);
Georday Enters. v. Commissioner, 126 F.2d 384 (4th Cir. 1942),
affg. a Memorandum Opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals, clearly
clarified and modified Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v.
Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938), and adopted and applied a
tax return filing “deadline”, “timely filing date”, “cutoff”, or
“terminal date” (whatever one chooses to call it) to the
entitlement of foreign corporations to deductions and credits
under the predecessor of section 882(c)(2).
As the Board of Tax Appeals explained in Taylor Sec., Inc.
v. Commissioner, supra at 703-704:
In view of such a specific prerequisite [that foreign
corporate taxpayers file tax returns] it is inconceivable
that Congress contemplated by that section that taxpayers
could wait indefinitely to file returns and eventually when
the respondent determined deficiencies against them they
could then by filing returns obtain all the benefits to
which they would have been entitled if their returns had
been timely filed. Such a construction would put a premium
on evasion, since a taxpayer would have nothing to lose by
not filing a return as required by statute.
In light of the above 1939 clarification by the Board of
Tax Appeals to its earlier 1938 opinion arguably to the contrary
in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co., supra, it is Taylor Sec.,
Inc., not Anglo-Am., that is to be regarded as the lead pre-
regulation court case. See Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, supra
at 910, in which the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
acknowledges that it is Taylor Sec., Inc. that (in spite of the
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011