Angelus Milling Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

• Decision Date: 04 May 1943
• Docket Number: Docket No. 398 P.T.
• Citation: 1 T.C. 1031
• Parties: ANGELUS MILLING COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
• Court: U.S. Tax Court

1 T.C. 1031

ANGELUS MILLING COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

Docket No. 398 P.T.

Tax Court of the United States.

Promulgated May 4, 1943.

PROCESSING TAX— JURISDICTION— INADEQUATE CLAIM.— The Court has no jurisdiction where the claims relied upon fail to set forth any of the information called for by the law, the regulations, and Form P.T. 79. Prew Savoy, Esq., for the petitioner.

Lloyd C. Hooks, Esq., for the respondent.

OPINION.

MURDOCK, Judge:

The Commissioner filed a motion on January 29, 1943, to dismiss this proceeding on jurisdictional grounds, one of which is that the Court is without jurisdiction since the petitioner has never filed a proper claim for refund. The Commissioner argues that this petitioner has never filed a claim which has adequately set forth the basis upon which a refund could be granted. Several exhibits were introduced, the parties were heard at length, and each submitted a memorandum.

The petitioner was formerly known as Middleport Flour Mills, Inc. It has alleged that it was a processor of wheat during the period from July 9, 1933, to January 6, 1936, and that it paid $145,839.12 in processing taxes on wheat processed by it during that period. Attached to its petition are copies of certain claims for refunds and an amendment to claim marked Exhibits A, B, and C upon which the petitioner relies to show jurisdiction in this Court.

Exhibit C is a copy of an ‘Amendment to Claim‘ filed by the petitioner on August 15, 1938, claiming a refund of $145,839.12. It alone, of the exhibits shows ‘Angelus Milling Company‘ as the name of the claimant. It is on Form P.T. 79, the form provided for a claim for refund of processing taxes. The form includes schedules A to E, inclusive, but those schedules are left blank. Attached to the form, on a separate piece of paper, is certain information purporting to show an allocation of refund due the Niagara Falls Milling Co. and the Angelus Milling Co. by comparing the sales of flour attributable to each. The total processing taxes paid is stated as $434,045.27. The only other information on this form is an affidavit of the president of the petitioner, which is in part as follows:

The within claim for refund was originally filed on the 22nd day of June 1936 in the name of the Niagara Falls Milling Company and/or Middleport Flour Mills, Inc. The name of Middleport Flour Mills Inc. was changed by permission of the Secretary of State of Albany, N.Y. to Middleport Flour Mills Inc.¹ Originally the claim in the name of both Companies was for the sum of $434,045.27.

Exhibit B attached to the petition is an alleged copy of a claim for refund filed by the Niagara Falls Milling Co.on Form P.T. 79, on which the amount claimed is $436,231.73. Information is given in the various schedules on that form. Apparently this claim was filed on June 30, 1937. One of the questions presented here is whether the ‘Amendment to Claim‘ filed by the petitioner (Exhibit C) may be regarded as an amendment to the claim filed by the Niagara Falls Milling Co. (Exhibit B). The original claim referred to in Exhibit C is described as having been filed in the name of ‘Niagara Falls Milling Company and/or Middleport Flour Mills, Inc.‘ on June 22, 1936, claiming a refund of $434.045.27. Obviously the reference could not be to the original of Exhibit B. The name of Middleport Flour Mills, Inc., is nowhere mentioned on Exhibit B, the amount of $434,045.27 does not appear on Exhibit B, and the date of filing was about a year after June 22, 1936. Furthermore, it is reasonably clear that the reference in Exhibit C is to be represented by Exhibit A.

Copies of three claims are included in Exhibit A. The taxpayer named in each is ‘Niagara Falls Milling Co., Inc., and/or Middleport Flour Mills, Inc.‘ One is for $57,875.45, another is for $244,895.40, and the third is for $131,274.42. The total of the three claims is $434.045.27. Apparently these claims were filed on or about June 22, 1936. The ‘Amendment to Claim‘ (Exhibit C) filed by the petitioner must have been intended as an amendment to the claims represented in Exhibit A. Those original claims were not made on Form P.T. 79, later provided and required by the Commissioner for claims for refund of processing taxes paid under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended. Instead, they were filed on an old Form 843, which was intended for a different purpose. The only information given on the claims represented by Exhibit A is a statement of taxes on processing of wheat paid by Niagara Falls Milling Co. for the period from July 31, 1933, to the end of that year, for the year 1934, and for the year 1935. The information required on Form P.T. 79 is not given on those claims.

The Commissioner denied the petitioner's claim for refund in a letter dated May 23, 1941, which was in part as follows:

Furthermore, your claim does not contain margins computed in accordance with section 907 of the Revenue Act of 1936 and Article 605 of Regulations 96, nor has any other evidence been submitted establishing that you bore the burden of the tax as required by section 902 of the Act and Article 606 of Regulations 96. Hence, you have not filed a true and complete claim in accordance with the requirements of section 903 of the Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

Since you did not pay the tax, refund of which is claimed to the Government and you have not filed a true and complete claim in accordance with the requirements of Title VII of the Revenue Act of 1936, your claim is hereby disallowed in full.

Section 903 of the Revenue Act of 1936 provides that no refund shall be allowed of any amount paid under the Agricultural Adjustment Act unless after the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1936 (June 22, 1936) and prior to July 1, 1937, a claim for refund has been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary. It further provides that all evidence relied upon in support of such claim shall be clearly set forth under oath. The Commissioner issued Regulations 86 relating to the above provision. These regulations provide that claims shall be on the prescribed forms and shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions contained on the forms. Art. 201. They further provide that each claim shall set forth in detail and under oath each ground upon which the refund is claimed. Art. 202. Article 601 of those Regulations provides that claims for refund of amounts paid as processing tax shall be filed on P.T. Form 79. Article 605 requires that there be submitted as a part of each claim a statement showing the average margin for the tax period and for the period before and after the tax. It also requires a detailed showing of the manner in which the margins for each month and the average...