DocketNumber: Docket No. 28954
Judges: Arundell
Filed Date: 12/18/1956
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
*12
Respondent determined a constructive average base period net income (CABPNI) under
*525 Respondent determined deficiencies*14 in income and excess profits taxes and disallowed claims for refund of excess profits tax asserted in applications for relief under
Deficiency | Deficiency | Refund | |
Fiscal year ended October 31 | income tax | excess profits | claims |
tax | disallowed | ||
1942 | $ 4,313.40 | $ 36,380.64 | $ 149,088.86 |
1943 | 102,483.74 | 149,860.03 | |
1944 | 115,312.91 | 155,666.80 | |
1945 | 74,765.43 | 133,520.37 |
The only issue remaining is whether respondent is precluded, as a matter of law, from determining that petitioner is not entitled to relief under
The parties have stipulated that if this Court holds as a matter of law that respondent is so precluded, then in computing petitioner's excess profits tax liabilities for the above-mentioned taxable years petitioner is entitled to use an excess profits credit based on a constructive *526 average base period net income in the amount of $ 209,330.72; and that if this Court holds as a matter of law that respondent is
(a) that in the computation*15 of petitioner's excess profits tax liabilities for the taxable years ended October 31, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, petitioner's excess profits credits are in the respective amounts set forth in paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Stipulation No. 2 filed simultaneously herewith and (b) that petitioner is not entitled to any relief under
The parties have further stipulated that whatever our decision may be with regard to the above-mentioned issue of law, effect shall be given in a computation under Rule 50 to the adjustments agreed to by the parties and fully set forth in Stipulation No. 2.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
Stipulation Nos. 1, 2, and 3, together with all the exhibits submitted therewith, are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner is a corporation organized in 1928 under the laws of the State of North Carolina. It filed its returns for the periods here involved with the then collector of internal revenue for the district of North Carolina at Greensboro.
On July 14, 1942, petitioner filed Form 991, application for relief under
On or about April 26, 1943, petitioner received from the Treasury Department a check for $ 20,033.44, which represented a refund of excess profits tax in the amount of $ 19,368.30, with interest thereon, for the taxable year ended October 31, 1941, determined according to the revenue agent's report transmitted to petitioner on January 9, 1943.
On January 15, 1943, petitioner filed its income and excess profits tax returns for its taxable year ended October 31, 1942. The computation of its excess profits credit on its excess profits tax return did not take into account any constructive average*17 base period net income under
*527 On August 6, 1943, petitioner filed an application for relief under
On January 20, 1944, petitioner filed its income and excess profits tax returns for its taxable year ended October 31, 1943. In the computation of its excess profits credit on its excess profits tax return, petitioner used the constructive average base period net income determined in the revenue agent's report for the taxable year ended October 31, 1941, as adjusted under section 711 (b).
On December 19, 1945, petitioner filed an application for relief under
On January 16, 1945, respondent mailed to petitioner a statutory notice under section 732 notifying petitioner of the partial allowance of its claim for relief under
On February 16, 1945, petitioner filed its income and excess profits tax returns for its taxable year ended October 31, 1944. In the computation of its excess profits credit on its excess profits tax return, petitioner used the constructive average base period net income determined in the revenue agent's report for the taxable year ended October 31, 1941, as adjusted under section 711 (b).
On August 29, 1945, petitioner's then representative addressed a letter to respondent, the fifth paragraph
On September 24, 1945, respondent, in answer to petitioner's letter of August 29, *20 1945, advised petitioner in the last paragraph of his letter as follows:
Accordingly, since the statutory notice was issued January 16, 1945, and the taxpayer decided not to file a petition with The Tax Court of the United States, the constructive average base period net income determined for the taxable year ended October 31, 1941 was finally determined at the expiration of the ninety-day period from the date of the statutory notice or April 16, 1945. Therefore the use of the constructive average base period net income, determined for the year ended October 31, 1941 is confined to any return required subsequent to the date of final determination or after April 16, 1945. The taxpayer is not permitted to use the same constructive average base period net income in computing its excess profits taxes in the returns required prior thereto without the filing of an application for relief under
On December 19, 1945, petitioner filed an application for relief under
On January 16, *21 1946, petitioner filed its income and excess profits tax returns for its taxable year ended October 31, 1945. In the computation of its excess profits credit on its excess profits tax return, petitioner, pursuant to the express permission granted by respondent in his above-mentioned letter dated September 24, 1945, used the constructive average base period net income determined in the revenue agent's report for the taxable year ended October 31, 1941, as adjusted under section 711 (b).
On May 14, 1948, petitioner timely filed an application for relief under
Petitioner's president and general manager, John Shoffner, died on March 3, 1944. Pursuant to resolutions of petitioner's stockholders and board of directors under dates of May 22, 23, and 24, 1944, a plan of reorganization, by recapitalization, was adopted and agreed upon, whereby all of the then issued and outstanding stock of petitioner was exchanged for new preferred shares, and petitioner's new management, Chester H. Roth Co., Inc., acquired all of petitioner's newly issued voting stock for $ 200,000 in cash. In connection with this reorganization, a nationally*22 known firm of certified public accountants was engaged to prepare a report of petitioner's financial condition as of June 3, 1944. In this report, which was submitted to petitioner on August 2, 1944, the accountants included as an asset in petitioner's balance sheet as of June 3, 1944, the amount of $ 30,798.67 as representing "claim for refund of excess profits tax for fiscal *529 year ended October 31, 1942, under
The Company filed claim for refund of excess profits tax under general relief
On March 17, 1948, respondent transmitted to petitioner a revenue agent's report dated February*23 5, 1948, covering the taxable years ended October 31, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945, in which report it was recommended that petitioner's claims for relief under
On December 23, 1949, the Excess Profits Tax Council advised petitioner's then representative by letter that "Although the taxpayer qualifies for consideration for relief under
The statutory notice covering the taxable years ended October 31, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945, was mailed to petitioner on March 15, 1950. In this notice, respondent stated "it has been determined that you have not established your right to the relief requested in your applications" and in a "statement" attached to the notice respondent also stated "it is held that *24 you failed to qualify for relief under the provisions of
At the time of the reorganization in 1944 and for many years prior thereto, petitioner's records were kept in Alamance, North Carolina. They consisted of the general ledger, purchase journals, sales journals, payroll records, cost and production records, certain supplemental records for factory information and production, and certain sales records relating to the distribution of the manufactured product. Some of these records went back to the year 1929. Norman A. Jackson became treasurer of petitioner in May 1944, and from then on was in charge of the company's records. As treasurer, Jackson made himself fully acquainted with all the relief claims filed by petitioner under
*530 In 1947, petitioner moved its offices from Alamance to a new building in Burlington, North Carolina. Because of a shortage of space in the new building, Jackson ordered the personnel to destroy most of the records for 1941 and prior years except*25 the general ledger, the purchase journals, and the sales journals. Because of this destruction, petitioner found itself handicapped in furnishing information in support of its claims for relief for the years 1942 to 1945, inclusive.
Petitioner is not entitled to any relief under
In the computation of petitioner's excess profits tax liabilities for the taxable years ended October 31, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945, petitioner's excess profits credits, as determined under the income method, are in the respective amounts of $ 138,578.84, $ 138,578.84, $ 133,204.25, and $ 125,472.95.
OPINION.
Petitioner contends that the legislative and administrative history of
*531
(d) Application for Relief Under This Section. -- The taxpayer shall compute its tax, file its return, and pay its tax under this subchapter without the application of this section * * *. The benefits of this section shall not be allowed unless the taxpayer * * * makes application therefor in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary * * *. If a constructive average base period net income*28 has been determined under the provisions of this section for any taxable year, the Commissioner may, by regulations approved by the Secretary, prescribe the extent to which the limitations prescribed by this subsection may be waived for the purpose of determining the tax under this subchapter for a subsequent taxable year.
The first regulation on the above
(
Eligibility for relief and a constructive average base period net income finally determined on behalf of a taxpayer with respect to an excess profits tax taxable year may have to be reestablished with respect to a subsequent taxable year if: [Note: Here are listed six specific fact situations, any one of which, if present, would require the reestablishment of the constructive average base period net income. However, in the instant case, not any of the listed fact situations is present.]
On December 17, 1943, Public Law 201, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., was approved. This Public Law amended
On July 21, 1944,
(
*34 We are, therefore, of the opinion that, except where the prior final determination is one made by this Court, thereby introducing the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel,
*35 Petitioner contends, however, that it relied to its detriment upon representations made by respondent in his letter to petitioner dated September 24, 1945, and that as a result thereof respondent is estopped for the years ended October 31, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945, from reconsidering his prior determination of constructive average base period net income.
It is true respondent advised petitioner that in filing its return for 1945 the constructive average base period net income as theretofore determined for 1941 could be used, and petitioner did in fact use the constructive average base period net income so determined *534 for the earlier year. But, as we have already pointed out, the right to so make a return did not confer on petitioner substantive rights of a nature that would prevent the respondent from correcting in years subsequent to 1941 what he regarded as an error in his earlier determination. It may be noted that the special right to use the 1941 constructive average base period net income in computing the tax in later returns had no application to the returns for the years 1942, 1943, and 1944, for which years petitioner was required to file claims for relief under*36
Reviewed by the Special Division.
1. All references to section numbers herein are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, unless otherwise designated.↩
2. The citation of Mimeograph 5895 referred to in this paragraph is
3. This adjustment is for income taxes for the base period years and is automatic due to the repeal of section 711 (b) (1) (A) by section 202 (c) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1941, effective under section 205, 1941 Act, with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1940, and is not in dispute.↩
4. The original Regulations 109 were published as
5.
(d) Application for Relief Under This Section. -- The taxpayer shall compute its tax, file its return, and pay the tax shown on its return under this subchapter without the application of this section, except as provided in section 710 (a) (5). The benefits of this section shall not be allowed unless the taxpayer within the period of time prescribed by section 322 and subject to the limitation as to amount of credit or refund prescribed in such section makes application therefor in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary. If a constructive average base period net income has been determined under the provisions of this section for any taxable year, the Commissioner may, by regulations approved by the Secretary, prescribe the extent to which the limitations prescribed by this subsection may be waived for the purpose of determining the tax under this subchapter for a subsequent taxable year.↩
6. It is conceded that at no time was petitioner of such an "opinion" as is referred to in this regulation.↩
7. The remainder of sections 30.722-5 (
8. The Conference Report reads in part as follows:
"Under the existing law, as interpreted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, it was necessary for the taxpayer to compute his [
9. Cf.