Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Eaton
Decision Date | 17 June 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 219,220.,219 |
Citation | 34 F.2d 128 |
Parties | HARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO. v. EATON, Collector of Internal Revenue (two cases). |
Court | U.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, section 1317 of the Revenue Act of 1918 (26 USCA § 98), which provided in part as follows:
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-
F.E. McGillick Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 54088-54090
...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
...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
...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
...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......