Colony v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Citation | 2 L.Ed.2d 1119,78 S.Ct. 1033,357 U.S. 28 |
Decision Date | 09 June 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 306,306 |
Parties | The COLONY, Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. A. Robert Doll, Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph F. Goetten, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
The sole question in this case is whether assessments by the Commissioner of two asserted tax deficiencies were barred by the three-year statute of limitations provided in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
Under the 1939 Code the general statute of limitations governing the assessment of federal income tax deficiencies is fixed at three years from the date on which the taxpayer filed his return, § 275(a), 53 Stat. 86, 26 U.S.C.A. § 275(a), except in cases involving a fraudulent return or failure to file a return, where a tax may be assessed at any time. § 276(a), 53 Stat. 87. A special five-year period of limitations is provided when a taxpayer, even though acting in good faith, 'omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 per centum of the amount of gross income stated in the return * * *.' § 275(c), 53 Stat. 86. In either case the period of limitation may be extended by a written waiver executed by the taxpayer within the statutory or any extended period of limitation. § 276(b), 53 Stat. 87.1
The Commissioner assessed deficiencies in the taxpayer's income taxes for each of the fiscal years ending October 31, 1946, and 1947, within the extended period provided in waivers which were executed by the taxpayer more than three but less than five years after the returns were filed. There was no claim that the taxpayer had inaccurately reported its gross receipts. Instead, the deficiencies were based upon the Commissioner's determination that the taxpayer had understated the gross profits on the sales of certain lots of land for residential purposes as a result of having overstated the 'basis' of such lots by erroneously including in their cost certain unallowable items of development expense. There was no claim that the returns were fraudulent.
The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner. It held that substantial portions of the development costs were properly disallowed, and that these errors by the taxpayer had resulted in the understatement of the taxpayer's total gross income by 77.2% and 30.7%, respectively, of the amounts reported for the taxable years 1946 and 1947. In addition, the Tax Court held that in these circumstances the five-year period of limitation provided for in § 275(c) was applicable. It took the view that the statutory language, 'omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein,' embraced not merely the omission from a return of an item of income received by or accruing to a taxpayer, but also an understatement of gross income resulting from a taxpayer's miscalculation of profits through the erroneous inclusion of an excessive item of cost. 26 T.C. 30. On the taxpayer's appeal to the Court of Appeals the only question raised was whether the three-year or the five-year statute of limitations governed the assessment of these deficiencies. Adhering to its earlier decision in Reis v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 142 F.2d 900, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 6 Cir., 244 F.2d 75. We granted certiorari because this decision conflicted with rulings in other Courts of Appeals on the same issue, 2 and because the question as to the proper scope of § 275(c), although resolved for the future by § 6501(e)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 6501(e)(1)(A), 78 S.Ct. 1037, 1038, infra, remains one of substantial importance in the administration of the income tax laws for earlier taxable years. 355 U.S. 811, 78 S.Ct. 51, 2 L.Ed.2d 29.
In determining the correct interpretation of § 275(c) we start with the critical statutory language, 'omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein.' The Commissioner states that the draftsman's use of the word 'amount' (instead of, for example, 'item') suggests a concentration on the quantitative aspect of the error—that is, whether or not gross income was understated by as much as 25%. This view is somewhat reinforced if, in reading the above-quoted phrase, one touches lightly on the word 'omits' and bears down hard on the words 'gross income,' for where a cost item is overstated, as in the case before us, gross income is affected to the same degree as when a gross-receipt item of the same amount is completely omitted from a tax return.
On the other hand, the taxpayer contends that the Commissioner's reading fails to take full account of the word 'omits,' which Congress selected when it could have chosen another verb such as 'reduces' or 'understates,' either of which would have pointed significantly in the Commissioner's direction. The taxpayer also points out that normally 'statutory words are presumed to be used in their ordinary and usual sense, and with the meaning commonly attributable to them.' De Ganay v. Lederer, 250 U.S. 376, 381, 39 S.Ct. 524, 525, 63 L.Ed. 1042. 'Omit' is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1939) as 'to leave out or unmentioned; not to insert, include, or name,' and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has elsewhere similarly defined the word. Ewald v. Commissioner, 141 F.2d 750, 753. Relying on this definition, the taxpayer says that the statute is limited to situations in which specific receipts or accruals of income items are left out of the computation of gross income. For reasons stated below we agree with the taxpayer's position.
Although we are inclined to think that the statute on its face lends itself more plausibly to the taxpayer's interpretation, it cannot be said that the language is unambiguous. In these circumstances we turn to the legislative history of § 275(c). We find in that history persuasive evidence that Congress was addressing itself to the specific situation where a taxpayer actually omitted some income receipt or accrual in his computation of gross income, and not more generally to errors in that computation arising from other causes.
Section 275(c) first appeared in the Revenue Act of 1934. 48 Stat. 680. As introduced in the House the bill simply added the gross-income provision to § 276 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, relating to fraudulent returns and cases where no return had been filed, and carried with it no period of limitations. The intended coverage of the proposed provision was stated in a Report of a House Ways and Means Subcommittee as follows:
'Section 276 provides for the assessment of the tax without regard to the statute of limitations in case of a failure to file a return or in case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax.
Hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 139.
This purpose of the proposal was related to the full Committee in the following colloquy between Congressman Cooper of Tennessee, speaking for the Subcommittee, and Mr. Roswell Magill, representing the Treasury:
House Hearings, supra, p. 149.
The full Committee revealed the same attitude in its report:
'It is not believed that taxpayers who are so negligent as to leave out of their returns items of such magnitude should be accorded the privilege of pleading the bar of the statute.' H.R.Rep. No. 704, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 35.
The Senate Finance Committee approved of the intended coverage and language of the bill, except that it believed the statute of limitations should not be kept open indefinitely in the case of an honest but negligent taxpayer. Its report stated:
S.Rep. No. 558, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 43—44.
Except for embodying the five-year period of limitation, § 275(c), as passed, reflects no change in the original basic objective underlying its enactment.
As rebutting these persuasive indications that Congress merely had in mind failures to report particular income receipts and accruals, and did not intend the five-year limitation to apply whenever gross income was understated, the Commissioner stresses the occasional use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter Family Inv.S LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 30833-08.
...possibly adduce as bases upon which his regulatory project "purports to rest", id. : (1) The Supreme Court's holding in Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28 (1958), which excluded overstatement of basis from the phrase "omits from gross income" in the identically worded predecessor of......
-
Singh v. Attorney Gen. of United States
...of health insurance for millions of people"). [9] The Home Concrete plurality held that a prior preChevron case, Colony, Inc. v. Comm'r, 357 U.S. 28, 33 (1958), did not "reflect[ ] a post-Chevron conclusion that Congress had delegated gap-filling power to the agency." 566 U.S. at 48889. The......
-
Singh v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S
...insurance for millions of people").9 The Home Concrete plurality held that a prior pre-Chevron case, Colony, Inc. v. Comm'r , 357 U.S. 28, 33, 78 S.Ct. 1033, 2 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1958), did not "reflect[ ] a post-Chevron conclusion that Congress had delegated gap-filling power to the agency." 56......
-
Intermountain Ins. Serv. of Vail v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv.
...T.C. 207 (2007) , aff'd, 568 F.3d 767 (9th Cir.2009), which had applied the Supreme Court's decision in Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28, 78 S.Ct. 1033, 2 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1958). In Colony , the meaning of which is central to this case, the Supreme Court interpreted “omits from gross......
-
Supreme Court Holds Six-Year Statute Of Limitations Does Not Apply To Overstatement Of Basis
...holding in Home Concrete in favor of the taxpayer, primarily relying on the court's earlier decision in Colony Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28 (1958). In that case, the court concluded that an overstatement of basis did not constitute an omission from gross income under former section 275......
-
Reasserting Its Role As Final Interpreter Of The Law, The Supreme Court Rejects IRS 'Fighting Regulation' In United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, Et Al.
...was based on (i) the principle of stare decisis in respect of the 1958 Supreme Court opinion on point, Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28, and (ii) a clarification of its deference jurisprudence. With last year's high court decision in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Rese......
-
Another Federal Court of Appeals Weighs In On The Applicability Of The Six-Year Statute Of Limitations Period To An Overstatement Of Basis
...courts in Bakersfield Energy and Salman Ranch I relied on the Supreme Court of the United State's decision in Colony Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28 (1958), which had concluded that an overstatement of basis was not an omission from gross income under former section 275(c) of the Internal......
-
Supreme Court Decision Alert - April 25, 2012
...and concurring in the judgment. The majority held that the case is controlled by the Court's decision in Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28 (1958), which interpreted identical language in an earlier version of the tax code to apply only when "specific receipts or accruals of income a......
-
Home concrete: the story behind the IRS's attempt to overrule the judiciary and lessons for the future.
...U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and which Justice Scalia criticized in a concurring opinion. (2.) 357 U.S. 28 (1958) (holding that, under identical language in the predecessor to current sections 6229 and 6501, an overstatement of basis is not an omiss......
-
IRS maintains stance on omissions from gross income and overstatement of basis.
...In ruling that the temporary regulations were invalid, the Tax Court in Inter-mountain held that the Supreme Court's opinion in Colony, 357 U.S. 28 (1958), which held that a basis overstatement is not an omission from gross income and that Congress did not intend for a basis overstatement t......
-
Temporary regs. held invalid.
...to that case and that the temporary regulations were invalid because they were contrary to the Supreme Court's opinion in Colony, Inc., 357 U.S. 28 Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail, LLC (Intermountain), engaged in a series of transactions--some of which increased tax basis--culminati......