Manning v. Seeley Tube Box Co of New Jersey v. 17 8212 18, 1949

• Citation: 338 U.S. 561,94 L.Ed. 346,70 S.Ct. 386
• Decision Date: 06 February 1950
• Docket Number: No. 70,70
• Parties: MANNING v. SEELEY TUBE & BOX CO. OF NEW JERSEY. Argued Nov. 17—18, 1949
• Court: United States Supreme Court

338 U.S. 561

70 S.Ct. 386

94 L.Ed. 346

MANNING

v SEELEY TUBE & BOX CO. OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 70.

Argued Nov. 17—18, 1949.

Decided Feb. 6, 1950.

Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Messrs. George G. Tyler, New York City, Walter J. Bilder, Newark, N.J., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The facts of this case have been agreed upon by stipulation. On December 15, 1941, respondent taxpayer, a New Jersey corporation, filed a corporate tax return for its fiscal period, January 1, 1941, to September 30, 1941. On January 12, 1942, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the tax,¹ which respondent timely paid. Respondent was adjudged a bankrupt and a receiver appointed on July 7, 1943. On August 2, 1943, the Commissioner, using the accelerated procedure applicable in bankruptcy cases,² assessed deficiencies in the 1941 taxes with interest from the date the tax was properly due to the assessment date.³

On March 3, 1944, respondent filed its return for the fiscal period from October 1, 1942, to September 30 1943, showing a net operating loss⁴ for that year. This loss, when carried back in accordance with § 122(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code,⁵ was sufficient to abate completely respondent's tax liability for 1941. Respondent then filed claims for a refund of that part of the 1941 tax which had already been paid, and for the abatement of the assessed deficiency and interest. The Commissioner abated the deficiency, but refused to refund all the tax which had been paid, retaining an amount equal to the interest which had been assessed on the deficiency.

Respondent then sued the Collector for the interest. The District Court sustained the Collector, holding that the payment of the interest remained an obligation of the taxpayer, even though the assessed deficiency had itself been abated. 1948, 76 F.Supp. 937. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the carry-back, in wiping out the debt of the tax deficiency, must also have wiped out the interest which had been assessed on that deficiency. 1948, 172 F.2d 77. Because of the frequency of the use of the carry-back provision of the Internal Revenue Code, we granted certiorari. 1949, 337 U.S. 955, 69 S.Ct. 1531.

The general statutory scheme which presents the problem is as follows: As of a certain date the taxpayer has a duty to file a return for the previous fiscal year and pay the amount of the tax actually due for that year.⁶ If this return is erroneously calculated and the payment is less than the tax properly due, the Commissioner, using the procedure appropriate to the particular situation, may assess a deficiency, the difference between the tax imposed by law and the tax shown upon the return.⁷ Interest upon this deficiency at the rate of six per cent from the date the tax was lawfully due to the date of the assessment is assessed at the same time as the deficiency.⁸ If a net operating loss is subsequently sustained, that loss may be carried back and added to the deductions for the two previous taxable years, with appropriate adjustments in the tax liability for those years. The problem with which we are concerned in this case is whether the interest on a validly assessed deficiency is abated when the deficiency itself is abated by the carry-back of a net operating loss.

We hold that the interest was properly withheld by the Collector. The subsequent cancellation of the duty to pay this assessed deficiency does not cancel in like manner the duty to pay the interest on that deficiency. From the date the original return was to be filed until the date the deficiency was actually assessed, the taxpayer had a positive obligation to the United States: a duty to pay its tax. See Rodgers v. United States, 1947, 332 U.S. 371, 374, 68 S.Ct. 5, 7, 92 L.Ed. 3; United States v. Childs, 1924, 266 U.S. 304 309—310, 45 S.Ct. 110, 111, 69 L.Ed. 299; Billings v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 261, 285—287, 34 S.Ct. 421, 425—426, 58 L.Ed. 596. For that period the taxpayer, by its failure to pay the taxes owed, had the use of funds which rightfully should have been in the possession of the United States. The fact that the statute permits the taxpayer subsequently to avoid the payment of that debt in no way indicates that the taxpayer is to derive the benefits of the funds for the intervening period. In the absence of a clear legislative expression to the contrary, the question of who properly should possess the right of use of the money owed the Government for the period it is owed must be answered in favor of the Government.

It is apparent from an inspection of the Code that Congress intended the United States to have the use of the money lawfully due when it became due. Several sections of the Code prescribe penalties and additions to the tax for negligence and fraud.⁹ A taxpayer who files a timely return but does not pay the tax on time must pay interest on the tax until payment.¹⁰ Even when the Commissioner, at the request of the taxpayer, authorizes an extension of the time of payment, interest must be paid by the taxpayer for the period of the extension.¹¹ And when the Commissioner assesses a deficiency he also may assess interest on that deficiency from the date the tax was due to the assessment date.¹²

The enactment of the carry-back provision in 1942 did not change this policy of the statute requiring prompt payment. This section was intended to afford taxpayers an opportunity to present for tax purposes a realistic, balanced picture of their profits and losses. It permits a taxpayer to add a net operating loss for one year to the deductions for the two previous taxable years. The Report of the Senate Committee on Finance states that the purpose of the section was to afford relief to cases where maintenance and upkeep expenses were deferred to peacetime years because of wartime restrictions. S.Rep. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 51—52 (1942). But there is no indication that Congress intended to encourage taxpayers to cease prompt payment of taxes. The same Report, explaining the operation of the section which became the present carry-back provision, states, 'A taxpayer entitled to a carry-back of a net operating loss or an unused excess profits credit * * * will not be able to determine the deduction on account of such carry-back until the close of the future taxable year in which he sustains the net operating loss or has the unused excess profits credit. He must therefore file his return and pay his tax without regard to such deduction, and must file his claim for refund at the close of the succeeding taxable year when he is able to determine the amount of such carry-back.' S.Rep. No. 1631 at 123 124. (Italics added.) We can imagine no clearer indication of a Congressional understanding and intent that the carry-back was not to be interpreted as deferring or delaying the prompt payment of taxes properly due.

Although it is true that for many purposes the carry-back is equivalent to a de novo determination of the tax, our conclusion that this section does not retroactively alter the duty of a taxpayer to pay his full tax promptly is amply supported by § 3771(e) of the Code.¹³ That section, an integral part of the carry-back provision, prohibits a taxpayer who does pay a tax which is subsequently abated by a carry-back from claiming interest from the Government for the intervening period. It is clear, therefore, that Congress in 1942 did not intend to change the basic statutory policy: the United States is to have the possession and use of the lawful tax at the date it is properly due.

To sustain respondent's contention would be to place a premium on failure to conform diligently with the law. For then a taxpayer who did not pay his taxes on time would receive the full use of the tax funds for the intervening period, while the taxpayer who did obey the statutory mandate and pay his lawful taxes promptly would be prohibited by § 3771(e) from having the use of the money for that period. We cannot approve such a result.

Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the present structure of the Code, as amended by § 4(a) of the Tax Adjustment Act of 1945, 59 Stat. 519, now §§ 3779 and 3780 of the Code. Prior to 1945, the Commissioner had power to authorize, at the request of the taxpayer, an extension of time for the payment of taxes, and interest on such an extension was charged at the rate of six per cent.¹⁴ The Tax Adjustment Act of 1945 was passed to improve the cash position of taxpayers by allowing them to defer current tax payments if there was a reasonable chance that these payments would be returned to them in the future because of business losses, and to speed up the refund of taxes paid. H.R.Rep. No. 849, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 1—6 (1945); Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation Rep. No. 1, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 6—9 (1945). Under § 3779 a corporation filing its return for the preceding tax year has the right to obtain an extension of time for the payment of the tax for that preceding year. This extension may be obtained if the corporation expects to suffer, in the fiscal year in which the return is filed, a net operating loss sufficient to diminish, by a carry-back, its tax liability for the preceding tax years. At the close of that year, the taxpayer may file, under § 3780, an application for a tentative readjustment of taxes for preceding years, including a quick refund of taxes paid or an abatement of taxes which have been deferred. A corporation which does take advantage of these provisions is not completely absolved from the payment of interest on deferred taxes actually abated. For § 3779(i) expressly provides that the corporation must pay three per cent interest on deferred taxes actually abated by the carry-back and six per cent on those not abated. Again it is apparent that the Code contemplates timely payment of taxes and subsumes the right of...