Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Eaton

Decision Date17 June 1929
Docket NumberNo. 219,220.,219
Citation34 F.2d 128
PartiesHARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO. v. EATON, Collector of Internal Revenue (two cases).
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

E. F. Donaghue, of New York City, for appellant.

John Buckley, U. S. Atty., of Hartford, Conn. (George H. Cohen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Hartford, Conn., and C. M. Charest and H. B. Hunt, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The imposition of penalties for failure to file income tax returns was governed at the time these tax penalties were assessed by section 3176 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section 1317 of the Revenue Act of 1918 (26 USCA § 98), which provided in part as follows:

"* * * In case of any failure to make and file a return or list within the time prescribed by law, or prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the collector in pursuance of law, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall add to the tax 25 per centum of its amount, except that when a return is filed after such time and it is shown that the failure to file it was due to a reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, no such addition shall be made to the tax. In case a false or fraudulent return or list is willfully made, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall add to the tax 50 per centum of its amount."

The collector takes the position that the information return made under Form 1041 was not a return at all, because it was not a return in such form as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had prescribed. A proper return under the regulations would have been on Form 1040. Section 6336h (b) U. S. Comp. St., requires individuals to file a return in such form as the Commissioner shall prescribe, and section 6336h (e) requires trustees to make returns of income for their trusts and subjects them to all the provisions which apply to individuals. But while the return on Form 1041 may not have been adequate for some purposes, the provisions for imposing penalties do not seem to require a taxpayer to choose the right blank at his peril, when he acts in good faith and makes a full disclosure of his income.

It is to be noticed that, except in cases of a willfully false or fraudulent return, a penalty may be imposed only where there is a failure to make and file "a return or list." It is, to say the least, highly doubtful whether the right of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • F.E. McGillick Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 54088-54090
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 21 August 1958
    ...any return whatever for 4 successive years. The situation is quite different from that in Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Eaton (C.A. 2) 34 F.2d 128, to which petitioners refer. That was a case where a fiduciary Form 1041 had been filed instead of the return Form 1040. It was later held i......
  • U.S. v. Reynolds, 90-1479
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 28 November 1990
    ...409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973). Using the wrong form does not violate Sec. 7206(1). Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Eaton, 34 F.2d 128, 130 (2d Cir.1929). If the form has an open-ended line calling for Sec. 61 income, and the taxpayer leaves some income out, Sec. 7206(1......
  • Paymer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 July 1945
    ...cause for the failure is shown. Girard Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 122 F.2d 843; Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Eaton, 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 128. The applicable statute, § 291 of the Revenue Act of 1938, 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev.Code, § 291, does not make the imposi......
  • Girard Inv. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 22 August 1941
    ...Revenue Act of 1936, § 291, page 920. 22 5 Paul and Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 48.14. 23 Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Eaton, 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 128. 24 Rev.Stat. § 3176, as amended by § 1317 of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 25 Italics ours. 26 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 14. 27 2 C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT