Haag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

• Decision Date: 14 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 4680.,4680.
• Citation: 59 F.2d 516
• Parties: HAAG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

59 F.2d 516 (1932)

HAAG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 4680.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 14, 1932.

Geo. E. H. Goodner, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key and Hayner N. Larson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and W. Frank Gibbs, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.

Before ALSCHULER, EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

EVANS, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Petitioner relies on two grounds for reversal of the order of the Board: (a) The statute of limitations had run, and the claim was barred. (b) The administration of the estate of Louis E. Haag had been closed and Elnora C. Haag discharged as executrix when respondent mailed the deficiency notice to Elnora C. Haag, executrix. The Board of Tax Appeals was therefore without jurisdiction to hear the application of one who no longer existed.

Statute of Limitations. Section 277(a), Revenue Act 1924 (26 USCA § 1057 note) provides for a short period of limitation for the assessment of a tax against an estate on income received during the lifetime of the decedent. It reads:

"(3) In the case of income received during the lifetime of a decedent, the tax shall be assessed, and any proceeding in court for the collection of such tax shall be begun, within one year after written request therefor (filed after the return is made) by the executor, administrator, or other fiduciary representing the estate of such decedent, but not after the expiration of the period prescribed for the assessment of the tax in paragraph (1) or (2) of this subdivision."

Petitioner testified that on November 14, 1924, she sent a letter to respondent, which reads as follows:

"November 14, 1924. "Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Income Tax Division, Treasury Department Washington, D. C "Re: Estate of Louis Haag.

"Dear Sir: As Executrix of the Estate of my brother, Louis Haag, who died June 7, 1923, I filed an income tax return.

"I have been advised by officials of the local revenue office that before I can be relieved of my responsibilities as Executrix I should request the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to make a final examination and audit of said return and of all tax returns of Louis Haag.

"I, accordingly, hereby make formal request of you, as Commissioner, to make a final audit and examination of the tax return which I filed as Executrix of the Estate of Louis Haag, and of the tax returns filed by him prior to his death, upon which any liability might be found to exist against me as Executrix or as Beneficiary of his Estate.

"Please consider this letter as my formal request for a final determination and assessment of any further income tax which may be found to be due the government on income received during the lifetime of the decedent.

"Very respectfully yours "Executrix of Louis Haag."

Respondent disputed both the mailing and receipt of such letter, and the Board found "that the petitioner had not sustained the burden of proof that she requested an assessment of the taxes in question" and that "the assessment and collection are not barred."

We are satisfied that the evidence necessitated a finding that the letter was sent as testified by petitioner. Whether it was correctly addressed and received by the Commissioner presents a closer question. The finding of the Board is not entitled to the weight it would otherwise receive if based upon conflicting evidence. As we view the question, it is one of presumption. As we are satisfied that the letter was mailed, the presumption arises that it was received. It follows, therefore, that we must assume that the letter was sent by petitioner and received by the Commissioner and later apparently lost or misplaced.

There is likewise some uncertainty as to the exact date the income tax return was filed. The evidence however is sufficient for us to assume that it was filed on or before June 7, 1923. Likewise, the exact date when the administration of the estate was closed is not definitely fixed. Petitioner states, however, that the estate was closed before she wrote the letter of November 14, 1924.

These facts being settled, we can approach the consideration of petitioner's contention that the claim was barred because of section 277(a) (3) above quoted....