DocketNumber: Docket No. 4568-80.
Citation Numbers: 43 T.C.M. 1492, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 451, 1982 T.C. Memo. 293
Filed Date: 5/26/1982
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SCOTT,
Calendar | Addition to Tax, I.R.C. 1954 | ||
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a) | Sec. 6653(a) 1 |
1972 | $ 127.58 | $ 31.90 | $ 227.31 |
1973 | 362.60 | 90.65 | 147.34 |
1974 | 1,663.03 | 415.76 | 295.70 |
1975 | 675.33 | 168.83 | 476.96 |
Some of the issues raised by the pleadings have been disposed of by agreement of the parties leaving for our decision the following: (1) whether assessment of deficiencies and additions to tax for the taxable years 1972 and 1973 is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under
*454 FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
William B. and Cherryle S. Orrock (petitioners) resided in Morgan Hill, California, at the time of the filing of their petition in this case. For the taxable year 1972, petitioners submitted a Form 1040 to the Internal revenue Service, dated September 27, 1974, signed by both of them, which did not contain any information concerning petitioners' income, deductions, or tax liability. For the taxable year 1973, Dr. Orrock submitted a Form 1040 to the Internal Revenue Service, signed only by him, dated March 31, 1975, which did not contain any information concerning his income, deductions, or tax liability. For the taxable year 1974, Dr. Orrock submitted a Form 1040 to the Internal Revenue Service, signed only by him, dated April 14, 1975, which did not contain any information concerning his income, deductions, or tax liability. For the taxable year 1975, Dr. Orrock submitted a Form 1040 to the Internal Revenue Service, signed by him, dated April 5, 1976, which did not contain any information concerning his income, deductions, or tax liability. In the spaces on each of the Forms 1040 provided for*455 showing income, there appeared the words "OBJECT Self-incrimination." The words "Under penalties of perjury" above petitioners' signatures on each of these Forms 1040, except the one for the year 1975, were scratched out. The documents for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975 stated that the filing status was "Married filing separately." During January 1977, the district director of internal revenue in San Francisco received two separate joint Federal income tax returns signed by both petitioners and dated December 31, 1976, for the taxable years 1972 and 1973. These two returns did contain information concerning petitioners' income, deductions, and tax liability for those years. The returns were not mailed directly to the Internal Revenue Service but, rather, were first hand-delivered by Dr. Orrock on the morning of January 4, 1977, to the staff of Congressman Norman Y. Mineta at his local office in San Jose, California. In a letter dated January 4, 1977, 3 to the district director of the Internal Revenue Service, San Francisco, California, Mr. Sandoval, a staff assistant to Congressman Mineta, wrote that he had been authorized by petitioners to send in these revised income tax returns. *456 These two returns did not contain any stamped date that they were received by the district director and the mailing envelope was not available. 4 The returns could not have been delivered to San Francisco earlier than the following day, January 5, 1977.
During March 1977, the Internal Revenue Service received two separate joint Federal income tax returns signed by petitioners and dated March 14, 1977, for the taxable years 1974 and 1975. These returns contained information concerning petitioners' income, deductions, and tax liability for those two taxable years. These two returns were forwarded to the district director of internal revenue in San Francisco, California, through the offices of Congressman Mineta, located in San Jose, California. The returns were also*457 accompanied by a letter from Mr. Sandoval, dated March 14, 1977, and they were marked "received" by the district director in San Francisco on March 16, 1977.
A statutory notice of deficiency for the taxable years ended December 31, 1972 through 1975, was mailed by respondent to petitioners by certified mail on Monday, January 7, 1980.
Dr. Orrock was a self-employed dentist and businessman. Mrs. Orrock maintained his books and records. The income reported by petitioners on their returns filed in 1977, except for minor amounts, was from Dr. Orrock's practice of dentistry. The net profit reported by petitioners from Dr. Orrock's dentistry practice was $ 31,602, $ 28,855, $ 35,802, and $ 49,832 for the years 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975, respectively.
Petitioners did not make any payments of estimated tax during the taxable years 1972 through 1975. Petitioners timely filed income tax returns for the taxable years 1969 through 1971, and paid all taxes due and owing for those years.
OPINION
The first issue presented is whether assessment of deficiencies and additions to tax for the taxable years 1972 and 1973 is barred by the statute of limitations. The general rule under*458 section 6501(a) 5 is that assessment must be made within three years after the filing of a return. It is not clear whether petitioners contend that the original Forms 1040 they submitted constituted "returns" which started the running of the statute of limitations. However, these documents did not constitute "returns" as they did not contain sufficient information to enable respondent to determine petitioners' correct income and tax liability for those years.
Dr. Orrock hand-delivered the "amended" returns for the taxable years 1972 and 1973 to a Congressman's office in San Jose on the morning of January 4, 1977. A staff member then mailed petitioners' returns along with a letter dated January 4, 1977, to the district director of the Internal Revenue Service in San Francisco. We have found as a fact that the returns could not*460 have been received in San Francisco before January 5, 1977. It is clear that the returns were not "filed" when they were delivered to the Congressman's office as
The word "filed" as used in Federal statutes is generally defined to mean "delivered."
*462 We have found as a fact that the returns could not have been delivered to the district director in San Francisco prior to January 5, 1977. Although the statutory notice of deficiency was postmarked January 7, 1980, respondent argues that since January 5, 1980, fell on a Saturday, he had until Monday, January 7, 1980, to mail the notice. Respondent relies on
*463
In our view this regulation is a proper interpretation of the statute and has the force and effect of law. See
The next two issues are whether petitioners are liable for the additions to tax as determined by respondent.
The final issue presented is whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax imposed by
*466
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect in the years in issue.↩
2. On January 22, 1981, petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all the years here in issue raising issues (1) and (2) and an issue with respect to the administrative handling of the investigation of petitioners' tax liability. This motion was heard in San Francisco, California, on February 23, 1981. At the hearing the Court stated that since a question of fact was present in the case, the motion for summary judgment would be denied and the case proceeded to trial. Petitioners requested that the order denying the motion not be entered until after the Court filed its opinion in the case and had considered their arguments with respect to the various issues. This opinion disposes of all the relevant issues raised by petitioners and an order denying the motion for summary judgment will be entered.↩
3. Although this letter was actually dated January 4, 1976, the parties stipulated that this was a typographical error and that the actual date was January 4, 1977. ↩
4. There was in handwriting on each of these returns "Received 1/7/77 San Francisco, California R.E.S." "R.E.S." are the initials of respondent's special agent who was investigating petitioners' tax liabilities for the years 1972 through 1975.↩
5. Sec. 6501(a) provides as follows:
SEC. 6501. LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION.
(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed (whether or not such return was filed on or after the date prescribed) or, if the tax is payable by stamp, at any time after such tax became due and before the expiration of 3 years after the date on which any part of such tax was paid, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such tax shall be begun after the expiration of such period.↩
6.
(a) General Rule.--
(1) Date of delivery.--If any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed, or any payment required to be made, within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal revenue laws is, after such period or such date, delivered by United States mail to the agency, officer, or office with which such return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made, the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment, as the case may be. ↩
7.
(a) General Rule.--
(2) Mailing requirements.--This subsection shall apply only if--
(A) the postmark date falls within the prescribed period or on or before the prescribed date--
(i) for the filing (including any extension granted for such filing) of the return, claim, statement, or other document, or
(ii) for making the payment (including any extension granted for making such payment), and
(B) the return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment was, within the time prescribed in subparagraph (A), deposited in the mail in the United States in an envelope or other appropriate wrapper, postage prepaid, properly addressed to the agency, officer, or office with which the return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made.↩
8.
When the last day prescribed under authority of the internal revenue laws for performing any act falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the performance of such act shall be considered timely it if is performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. * * *↩
9. The parties entered a stipulation at trial which also listed the issues in the case. Petitioners did not object to the stipulation at trial. On brief, petitioners assert that they signed the stipulation only a short time before trial and that certain provisions of the stipulation should be stricken. With respect to the first item that petitioners question, Dr. Orrock's testimony at the trial confirmed the correctness of the stipulated fact. Petitioners also request that paragraph 12(c) of the stipulation, which refers to the addition to tax under
United States v. Arthur J. Porth , 426 F.2d 519 ( 1970 )
Gerli & Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 668 F.2d 691 ( 1982 )
Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 571 F.2d 174 ( 1978 )
United States v. Oscar H. Klee , 494 F.2d 394 ( 1974 )
Hotel Equities Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 546 F.2d 725 ( 1976 )
King v. United States , 495 F. Supp. 334 ( 1980 )
United States v. Lombardo , 36 S. Ct. 508 ( 1916 )
Commissioner v. South Texas Lumber Co. , 68 S. Ct. 695 ( 1948 )