COMMISSIONER OF INT. REVENUE v. Oswego Falls Corp.
Decision Date | 18 June 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 400.,400. |
Citation | 71 F.2d 673 |
Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OSWEGO FALLS CORPORATION. OSWEGO FALLS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Louis Monarch, and Lucius A. Buck, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner Commissioner.
James P. Quigley, of Olean, N. Y., and Alexander H. Cowie, of Syracuse, N. Y., for respondent Oswego Falls Corporation.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
These appeals, taken by the taxpayer and Commissioner, will be considered in one opinion.
The taxpayer was a new corporation organized pursuant to an agreement of consolidation, under date of January 30, 1922, of the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company, the Skaneateles Paper Company, and the Sealright Company, Inc., as filed in the office of the secretary of state of New York. The agreement provided for consolidation of the three corporations pursuant to section 7 of the Business Corporation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 4) of the state of New York. The assets of the three corporations were conveyed to the taxpayer, and it assumed the liabilities of each. The questions presented on the Commissioner's appeal are the nature and extent of the liability of the taxpayer in respect to income and profit taxes incurred by the taxpayer by reason of this consolidation. The first question is whether it is liable as a transferee of the assets of the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company within the meaning of section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (chapter 27, 44 Stat. 9, 61 26 USCA § 1069 and note). Second, whether the waivers signed by the taxpayer are effective to extend the statutory period for assessments against the taxpayer as a transferee of one of the consolidated corporations, namely, the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company.
The taxpayer's appeal raises the question of whether the notice of liability as to docket No. 28,301 was competent to vest the board with jurisdiction of the appeal.
Income tax returns were filed by the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company for the years 1917 to 1921, inclusive. Prior to November 19, 1925, income and profit tax waivers were executed in the name of the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company extending the period within which taxes might be assessed on said returns. These waivers expired more than one year before the mailing of the notices of liability that are here involved. November 19, 1925, a waiver for the years 1917 to 1920, inclusive, was executed in the name of the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company by its president and it bore the corporate seal of that company. On the same day, a waiver was filed bearing the seal of the taxpayer as follows:
July 21, 1926, a similar waiver was filed for the year 1921 to remain in effect until December 31, 1927. It was signed:
"Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Company "By its successor and sole beneficiary through merger, January 1, 1922. "Oswego Falls Corporation, Taxpayer. "Signed By H. L. Paddock, President."
A notice, dated March 10, 1927, was sent to the taxpayer and advised it of its liability for 1920 and 1921 "as transferee of the assets of the Oswego Falls Pulp & Paper Co." This notice was used as the basis for a petition to the Board of Tax Appeals (Docket No. 28301). A notice, dated October 4, 1927, advised the taxpayer of similar liability for 1917. A notice of November 29, 1927, advised the taxpayer of liability for 1918 and 1919. On November 18, 1927, the following waiver was signed:
Similar waivers were filed on October 30, 1928, and November 18, 1929, the last of which expired December 31, 1930. It was held by the Board that the notice of liability on which the proceeding of docket No. 28301 was founded was accepted by the taxpayer; that it was on the Commissioner's letterhead, and no question may now be raised against its validity; that all the waivers were executed after the pulp and paper company had ceased to exist with the facts well known to both parties to the waivers, but, since the taxpayer was liable for the involved tax, the waivers executed by it extended the period for assessment against it; for the years 1917 to 1920, inclusive, the waivers expired before the Commissioner mailed his notices; and that the assessment of taxes for the years 1917 to 1920 inclusive were barred; that the extra year provided by the statute (section 280(b) (1) of the Act, 26 USCA § 1069(b) (1) for assessing liability of a transferee runs from the expiration of the period for assessing the taxpayer transferor, and it was not extended by the waivers; that no provision of law authorized an assessment of a transferee after that year had expired and after expiration of waivers by the transferee; that the corporation could not be liable as a transferee except under some statute; that it is liable at law under the statute by which it was created; and its liability is not the secondary liability of a transferee but is a primary liability; that the corporation had no liability in equity for the taxes because of its complete remedy at law; that, since the statute created a new liability and provided a remedy, it was exclusive; that the taxpayer is not a transferee and did not receive the assets of the pulp and paper company by transfer and is not liable under section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926; that the notice of transferee liability for 1921 was timely and, although not liable as a transferee, the taxpayer primarily is liable for the involved tax. Judgment went for the taxpayer for the years 1917 to 1920, inclusive, and against the taxpayer for 1921.
The remedy afforded by section 280 of the Revenue Act of 1926 is nonexistent until all the remedies against the taxpayer are exhausted. Wire Wheel Corp. of America v. Com'r, 16 B. T. A. 737; Id., 46 F.(2d) 1013 (C. C. A. 2). This section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harper v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...a stamped signature. Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir.1992), affg. per curiam T.C.Memo. 1991–220; Commissioner v. Oswego Falls Corp., 71 F.2d 673 (2d Cir.1934), affg. 26 B.T.A. 60 (1932). In addition, the 3–year period of limitations had not expired. Mr. Feinson executed the For......
-
Atlas Tool Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...dealing with the effects of a statutory merger or consolidation. See Oswego Falls Corp. v. Commissioner, 26 B.T.A. 60 (1932), affd. 71 F.2d 673 (2d Cir. 1934). But see Marion-Reserve Power Co. v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 513 (1943). It is clear on this record that the requirements of New Jersey......
-
Vickers v. Commissioner
...established that in order to be valid, a deficiency notice need not be signed at all. Commissioner v. Oswego Falls Corp. 4 USTC ¶ 1311, 71 F. 2d 673 (2d Cir. 1934, Pendola v. Commissioner Dec. 29,017, 50 T.C. 509, 514 (1968). Indeed, a notice of deficiency is only to advise the person who i......
-
BJR Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...910, 914—915, affirmed 77 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.); cf. A.D. Saenger, 38 B.T.A. 1295, 1302—1303; Oswego Falls Corp., 26 B.T.A. 60, affirmed 71 F.2d 673 (2d Cir.). And, in cases where transferee liability is involved, sec. 6901(c)(1) extends, for an additional year, the normal 3-year period of li......