Thomas v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 December 1927
• Docket Number: No. 414.,414.
• Citation: 22 F.2d 1000
• Parties: THOMAS et ux. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

22 F.2d 1000 (1927)

THOMAS et ux. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 414.

District Court, N. D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division.

December 7, 1927.

Harry Weeks, of Wichita Falls, Tex., for plaintiffs.

N. A. Dodge, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., and F. J. Ready, Jr., Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C ATWELL, District Judge.

For the taxable year 1919 Mr. Thomas filed a return on March 9, 1920. At that time the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was not permitting the husband and wife to file separate returns of their respective incomes under state community property laws. In Thomas' return, which included the income of Mrs. Thomas, there was no direct statement of such fact. It was not signed by Mrs. Thomas.

The return was made on the form furnished by the Commissioner. The questions on the form sought information as to whether Thomas was married or single, and, if married, whether his wife was making, or had made, a separate return. These questions were correctly answered by Thomas, and disclosed, in substance, that he was married, and that his wife was not making any separate return.

At that time regulations of the Internal Revenue Bureau required that the husband should include in his return the income derived from services rendered by the wife, or from the sale of products of her labor, if she did not file a separate return, or join him in a return setting forth her income separately. Regulation 45, article 401.

On September 18, 1920, Treasury Decision 3071, embodying an opinion by the United States Attorney General, authorized the husband and wife, who resided in Texas, to divide equally between them the income from their personal services and from community property. On March 15, 1921, Thomas and his wife took advantage of this right and filed amended returns for the year 1919. On May 11, 1925, an additional assessment was made against Mrs. Thomas. This additional assessment was paid.

It is now sought to recover this additional payment on the ground that the statute of limitation had run before the May 11th assessment was made. If the return made by Thomas on March 9, 1920, was the return of the wife, then and in that event the assessment of May 11, 1925, was barred by the statute, and, the preliminary proceeding provided by the statute having been taken, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover. Bashara v. Hopkins (D. C.) 290 F. 592.

The information sought and secured by the Commissioner on blanks furnished to the taxpayer was sufficient...