CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


CLIFTON MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 293 U. S. 186 (1934)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 293 U. S. 186 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Clifton Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 293 U.S. 186 (1934)

Clifton Manufacturing Co. v. United States

No. 146

Argued October 17, 1934

Decided November 5, 1934

293 U.S. 186

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The time for making deficiency assessment, prescribed by § 250(d) of the Revenue Act of 1918 began to run in this case not from the filing of an additional return covering taxes added retroactively by that Act, but from the filing of the original return under the prior law. On the authority of: Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, ante p. 293 U. S. 172, and National Paper Products Co. v. Helvering, ante p. 183. P. 293 U. S. 188.

70 F.2d 102 reversed.

Certiorari to review the affirmance of a judgment against the Clifton Company in its action for money exacted of it as income and profits taxes. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 293 U. S. 187

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.

A question of limitation, similar to the one considered in our opinions in Nos. 37 and 39, and in Nos. 35 and 36, comes up for decision here. [Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, ante, p. 293 U. S. 172, and National Paper Products Co. v. Helvering, ante, p. 293 U. S. 183.]

The petitioner filed a return on May 28, 1918, under the Revenue Act of 1917 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1918. The Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1057) became a law on February 24, 1919, with retroactive provisions as of January 1, 1918. Thereafter the petitioner filed an additional return in accordance with Treasury Decision 2797 (approved March 11, 1919, and quoted in our opinion in Nos. 37 to 39), showing an additional tax of $50,638.75. The Act of 1918 provides (§ 250d) that, except in the case of fraud,

"the amount of tax due under any return shall be determined and assessed by the Commissioner within five years after the return was due or was made."

See also § 250d, Revenue Act of 1921. A deficiency assessment was imposed in May, 1921, which is admitted to have been timely, and another on May 26, 1926, which is contested as too late. There is also a contest in respect of both deficiencies growing out of delay in the collection. True, written waivers were in existence, adequate in form, which extended the date for assessment and collection until December 31, 1926. The taxpayer asserts, however, that they were procured by misrepresentation and signed without authority, and must therefore be ignored. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 293 U. S. 188

In an action to recover the tax paid by the petitioner under the two assessments in controversy, the District Court held (1) that irrespective of any waiver the term of limitation ran from the date of the additional return, and (2) that the waivers were valid and binding. 3 F.Supp. 508. On the authority of decisions in the Ninth Circuit (Zellerbach Paper Co. and National Paper Products Co. v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 852, 857), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed ruling No. 1 and did not pass upon the correctness of ruling No. 2.

For the reasons stated in our opinions in Nos. 37 to 39 and in Nos. 35 and 36, the first ruling is erroneous. The second ruling we do not consider, the question of the validity of the waivers being still open for determination in the court below.

The decree should be reversed, and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED