Klemp v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 05 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 14491-79. |
| Parties | RAYMOND D. KLEMP and ANN L. KLEMP, PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petitioners filed fraudulent original income tax returns for 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. On Oct. 17, 1974, petitioners filed nonfraudulent amended returns for those years. More than 3 years after the filing of the amended returns, but within 6 years of the filing of the original fraudulent 1973 return, respondent issued his notice of deficiency. Held, respondent's proposed assessment is barred by the statute of limitations provided in sec. 6501(a) I.R.C. 1954, which began running on the filing of the amended returns. Dowell v. Commissioner, 614 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir. 1980), revg. 68 T.C. 646 (1977), followed. Held, further, the 6-year statute of limitations provided in sec. 6501(e) did not apply to 1973. Kevin O'Connell, for the petitioners.
Gary R. DeFrang, for the respondent.
This case is before the Court on petitioners' motion for summary judgment. Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' taxes, plus additions to tax for fraud under section 6653(b)1 as follows:
+-----------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦Addition to tax ¦
+------+------------+---------------------¦
¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦under sec. 6653(b)2 ¦
+------+------------+---------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+------------+---------------------¦
¦1970 ¦$1,347 ¦$1,868 ¦
+------+------------+---------------------¦
¦1971 ¦1,452 ¦4,111 ¦
+------+------------+---------------------¦
¦1972 ¦2,079 ¦7,658 ¦
+------+------------+---------------------¦
¦1973 ¦4,860 ¦10,946 ¦
+-----------------------------------------+
The issue for decision is whether the statute of limitations bars the assessment and collection of deficiencies in income taxes and additions to the taxes for the years 1970 through 1973.
For purposes of this motion only, the facts have been fully stipulated and are found accordingly.
Raymond D. and Ann L. Klemp, husband and wife, resided in Eugene, Oreg., at the time they filed their petition. Petitioners timely filed joint income tax returns for the years 1970, 1971, and 1973. Petitioners filed their 1972 joint income tax return on June 21, 1973. (These returns will be referred to as petitioners' original returns.)
There was an underpayment of the tax required to be shown on petitioners' original returns for each of the years 1970 through 1973. All or a part of each such underpayment was due to fraud. Petitioners omitted from their original 1973 return gross income in excess of 25 percent of the gross income reported and failed to disclose receipt of such omitted gross income on the return or in a statement attached thereto.
In a letter dated July 26, 1974, respondent notified petitioners that their original 1973 return was to be audited. On October 17, 1974, petitioners met for the first time with a representative of respondent. At that meeting, they presented respondent's representative with amended income tax returns (the amended returns) for the years 1970 through 1973.
None of petitioners' amended returns omits gross income exceeding 25 percent of the reported amounts. In addition, the tax underpayments, if any, not reported on the amended returns are not due to fraud.
Respondent issued his notice of deficiency in this case on July 9, 1979.
In their motion for summary judgment petitioners claim that respondent's proposed assessments are barred by the statute of limitations found in section 6501(a).3 Respondent, on the other hand, asserts that since petitioners' original returns were fraudulent, section 6501(c)(1)4 controls and he may assess a tax at any time. Alternatively, respondent contends that since petitioners' original fraudulent 1973 return omitted from gross income an amount in excess of 25 percent of the amount reported, his proposed assessment for 1973 is not barred because the applicable period of limitations is 6 years as provided in section 6501(e).5
This case presents the same question we addressed in Dowell v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 646 (1977), revd. 614 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir. 1980). In Dowell, the taxpayers initially filed fraudulent income tax returns for the years 1963 through 1966. Subsequently, the taxpayers filed nonfraudulent amended returns. More than 3 years after the filing of the amended returns, respondent and the taxpayers entered into agreements to extend the period of limitations for assessing a tax. Respondent ultimately issued his notice of deficiency within the time provided for by the extensions. Since the extensions are valid only if executed within the period of limitations (sec. 6501(c)(4)), the question in Dowell was whether the amended returns barred respondent from the assessment and collection of taxes.
We held that petitioners' filing of the original fraudulent returns controlled the period of limitations, that the amended returns had no effect on the period of limitations, and, accordingly, under section 6501(c)(1), respondent was entitled to assess the tax at any time. The Tenth Circuit reversed.
In the present case, petitioners ask that we abandon our position in Dowell and adopt the position of the Tenth Circuit. Based on a thorough reevaluation of this issue, we conclude that the Tenth Circuit's result in Dowell is correct.
Section 6501(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided, the period of limitations for the assessment of a tax runs for 3 years after the return is filed. The two major categories of exceptions to this general rule are found in sections 6501(c) and 6501(e). Section 6501(c)(1) provides that in the case of the filing of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed at any time. Section 6501(e) provides that, except as otherwise provided in section 6501(c), in the case of a taxpayer who omits from gross income an amount in excess of 25 percent of the gross income reported on the return, the tax may be assessed at any time within 6 years after the return was filed.
The Tenth Circuit in Dowell pointed out that unlike sections 6501(a) and 6501(e), section 6501(c)(1) is not a statute of limitations but rather the antithesis thereof.6 Section 6501(c)(1) provides that under certain circumstances there is no period of limitations. The entire thrust of the Tenth Circuit's opinion, with which we agree, is that the filing of the amended returns did not change a period of limitations but rather started one. Prior to the filing of petitioners' amended returns in this case, no period of limitations was running. Upon the filing of the correct amended returns, the 3-year statute of limitations started running.7
Although it can be argued that “the return” in section 6501(a) indicates that for the purpose of the various statutes of limitations contained in section 6501 there is only one return per year, presumably the first return filed,8 such a narrow reading of the statute is not appropriate when there is a good policy reason for a broader interpretation. While there is a general 3-year statute of limitations in section 6501(a), as we have noted above, other subsections of section 6501 provide longer or unlimited periods for assessment and collection of the tax. For example, subsection (c) provides for no limitation in the case of false returns or no returns, and subsection (e) provides for a 6-year statute in the case of substantial omissions of income. These various limitations are intended to give respondent adequate time to assess the tax. In The Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28 (1958), the Supreme Court noted that the congressional purpose underlying the enactment of the predecessor to section 6501(e) was—-
to give the Commissioner an additional two years to investigate tax returns in cases where, because of a taxpayer's omission to report some taxable item, the Commissioner is at a special disadvantage in detecting errors. In such instances the return on its face provides no clue to the existence of the omitted item.
Similarly, the purpose of section 6501(c)(1) is to provide the Commissioner with an unlimited amount of time when he is at a special disadvantage based on the taxpayer's fraud. This is the position we took in Bennett v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 114 (1958), where we held that the filing of a return subsequent to the fraudulent failure to file a return was sufficient to start the running of the period of limitations. In Bennett v. Commissioner, supra at 123-124, we stated:
For, once a nonfraudulent return is filed, putting the Commissioner on notice of a taxpayer's receipts and deductions, there can be no policy in favor of permitting assessment thereafter at any time without limitation. We think that the statute of limitations begins to run with the filing of such returns. Cf. J. P. Bell Co., 3 B.T.A. 254, 255; Paul Haberland, 25 B.T.A. 1370, 1376-1377; Helvering v. Campbell, 139 F.2d 865, 868 (C. A. 4). Accordingly, unless the delinquent returns were themselves fraudulent, the period of limitations began to run on April 21, 1950, when they were filed, * * *
Based on this reasoning, we can see no reason for not allowing the section 6501(a) period of limitations to control in the present case.9
The second issue raised by respondent is his assertion that since petitioners omitted from gross income an amount in excess of 25 percent of the amount reported on their original fraudulent 1973 return, the applicable period of limitations is 6 years, as provided in section 6501(e), instead of the unlimited period contained in section 6501(c). Section 6501(e) explicitly does not apply to situations covered by section 6501(c). Respondent stipulated that petitioners' original 1973 return was fraudulent. Accordingly, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badaracco v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Deleet Merchandising Corp v. United States
...years from the date of filing of the nonfraudulent amended returns. The Tax Court, in line with its then-recent decision in Klemp v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 201 (1981), appeal pend- ing, (CA9 No. 81-7744), agreed with petitioners.3 42 TCM 573, ¶ 81,404 P-H Memo TC No. 82-1509. Petitioner Dele......
-
Riland v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect during the years at issue. 2. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3. Klemp v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 201 (1981), on appeal (9th Cir., Nov. 2, 1981); Liroff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-312; Derfel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-311; D......
-
Badaracco v. C.I.R.
...cases which have followed it. Britton v. U.S., 532 F.Supp. 275 (D.Vt.1981), aff'd without opinion (2d Cir. April 15, 1982); Klemp v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 201 (1981), on appeal (9th Cir. No. 81-7744); see also, Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412 (1982); Kramer v. Commissioner, 44 T.C.M. ......
-
Rinehart v. Commissioner
...we have found as a fact that the amended returns were nonfraudulent, their filing may, under this Court's ruling in Klemp v. Commissioner Dec. 38,109, 77 T.C. 201 (1981), commence the running of the three-year limitations period of section 6501(a) and assessment of any tax may still be time......
-
Tax Matters: Statutes of Limitation
...tax theology of [the IRS], no act of contrition will suffice to prevent the statute from running in perpetuity (Klemp v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 201 (T.C. It is important to distinguish in this context between the aforementioned statute of limitations for the assessment of civil consequences,......
-
Tax Matters: Statutes of Limitation
...tax theology of [the IRS], no act of contrition will suffice to prevent the statute from running in perpetuity (Klemp v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 201 (T.C. 1981)). It is important to distinguish in this context between the aforementioned statute of limitations for the assessment of civil conse......