Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co

• Decision Date: 14 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 356,356
• Citation: 50 S.Ct. 297,67 A. L. R. 1350,281 U.S. 245,74 L.Ed. 829
• Parties: LUCAS, Internal Revenue Com'r, v. PILLIOD LUMBER CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

281 U.S. 245

50 S.Ct. 297

74 L.Ed. 829

LUCAS, Internal Revenue Com'r,

v PILLIOD LUMBER CO.

No. 356.

Argued Jan. 14, 1930.

Decided April 14, 1930.

The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Mr. Henry M. Ward, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Using therefor what is known as 'Form 1013T,' on March 14, 1919, respondent, Pilliod Lumber Company, executed and filed with the collector of internal revenue a tentative return and estimate of corporate income and profits taxes for 1918, signed and sworn to by its president and treasurer. At the same time it remitted $1,000, one-fourth of the estimated taxes, and requested an extension of forty-five days within which to present a final report as required by law.

May 31, 1919, it lodged with the collector another return for 1918, made out upon Form 1120, which contained various statements in respect of gross income, deductions, credits, etc., but was not signed or sworn to by anyone.

In answer to a request from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent's president and treasurer swore to and filed with him, September 17, 1923, the following affidavit concerning the return of May 31—

'We, the undersigned, hereby affirm that our names should have appeared on our income tax return for 1918, and which to the best of our knowledge and belief is correct. We are unable to furnish duplicate signed report, being unable to locate copy, believing same to have been destroyed with other records.'

Two years later, October 23, 1925, the Commissioner notified the company of a deficiency assessment amounting to $963.34. Affirming that any claim for such tax had been extinguished by the five-year statute of limitations, it appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. They held that neither the tentative return of March, 1919, nor the later unsworn one, was adequate to set the statute of limitations in motion and affirmed the Commissioner's ruling. The Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the unsworn return was adequate and upon that ground reversed the action of the Board without expressing any opinion concerning the effect of the tentative return.

The Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1081, 1083, provides:

'Sec. 239. That every corporation subject to taxation under this title and every personal service corporation shall make a return, stating specifically the items of its gross income and the deductions and credits allowed by this title. The return shall be sworn to by the president, vice president, or other principal officer and by the treasurer or assistant treasurer. * * *'

'Sec. 250. * * * (d) Except in the case of false or fraudulent returns with intent to evade the tax, the amount of tax due under any return shall be determined and assessed by the Commissioner within five years after the return was due or was made, and no suit or proceeding for the collection of any tax shall be begun after the expiration of five years after the date when the return was due or was made. in the case of such false of fraudulent returns, the amount of tax due may be determined at any time after the return is filed, and the tax may be collected at any time after it becomes due.'

The Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 287, 299, 301, by section 239(a), 26 USCA § 991(a), requires corporations to make returns like those prescribed by the Act of 1918. Sec- tion 277(a), 26 USCA § 1057, note,...