AJ Bates Co. v. United States
| Citation | 3 F. Supp. 245 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. M-337.,M-337. |
| Parties | A. J. BATES CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Howe P. Cochran, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
John W. Hussey and W. W. Scott, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.
The single issue presented in this case is: Was the additional tax of $5,863.62 assessed against the A. J. Bates Chicago Company by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on December 21, 1925, barred by the statute of limitations at the time the assessment was made?
The plaintiff and the A. J. Bates Chicago Company filed a consolidated tax return for the year 1918 on June 16, 1919. The 5-year period of limitation within which a tax could legally be assessed on the return was June 16, 1924. The tax in question was assessed on December 21, 1925, more than 18 months after the 5-year period had expired, and was clearly barred at the time, unless the time within which the assessment could be made had been extended by the filing of a valid waiver.
It is the contention of the government that such waiver was executed and filed on March 25, 1925, and that within the time as extended by the waiver the assessment was made. The plaintiff contends that the waiver was invalid and did not operate to extend the time within which the Commissioner could make the assessment.
On February 10, 1921, the secretary of state of Illinois issued a certificate dissolving the A. J. Bates Chicago Company as of that date. Section 79, chapter 32 of Smith-Hurd Illinois Revised Statutes of 1925 (Act of June 28, 1919) provides:
The period of limitation within which suit by creditors could be instituted against the Illinois corporation, its officers or stockholders, for any liabilities incurred previous to its dissolution, expired on February 10, 1923. From and after that date the Illinois corporation was extinct for all purposes. It was as nonexistent as if it had never been created, had no stockholders or officers, and was incapable of transacting any business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walder v. Paramount Publix Corporation
... ... Charles WALDER et al., Plaintiffs, ... PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORPORATION et al., Defendants ... United States District Court S. D. New York ... June 24, 1955.132 F. Supp. 913 COPYRIGHT ... 317, 79 Ct.Cl. 215; Kieckhefer v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 1013, 80 Ct.Cl. 71; A. J. Bates Co. v. United States, 3 F.Supp. 245, 77 Ct.Cl. 611 ... 11 McClung v. Hill, 5 ... ...
- Santander Consumer USA. Inc v. Walsh
-
Chicago Title Trust Co v. Wilcox Bldg Corporation
... ... 372; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Flynn Coal Co., 274 Ill.App. 405. See, also, A. J. Bates Co. v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 3 F.Supp. 245, ... 248; Charles A. Zahn Co. v. United States ... ...
-
Canadian Ace Brewing Co., v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., ANHEUSER-BUSC
...cases decided similarly by the Court of Claims include Charles A. Zahn Co. v. United States, 6 F.Supp. 317 (1934); A. J. Bates Co. v. United States, 3 F.Supp. 245 (1933). A literal reading of the statute also shows that its provisions are applicable not only to a dissolved corporation but a......