Summary
In First Chicago Corp. v. Commissioner, 742 F.2d 1102 (7th Cir.1984), the taxpayer carried back a capital loss and an investment credit from 1974 to the 1971 tax year, causing a reduction in its 1971 income tax.
Summary of this case from Electrolux Holdings v. U.S.Opinion
No. 83-2267.
Argued April 18, 1984.
Decided September 4, 1984.
John L. Snyder, Hopkins Sutter, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellee.
Ernest J. Brown, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Appellate Sect., Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves the question whether the Commissioner's assessment of a deficiency in income taxes of First Chicago Corporation for 1972 was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations contained in Section 6501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as the full Tax Court held in an 8 to 5 decision reported in 80 T.C. 648 (1983). We hold that the statute of limitations was not a bar because the exceptions in Sections 6501(h) and 6501(j) apply.
The pertinent parts of Section 6501 are reproduced in the Appendix hereto.
The taxable years involved are 1972 and 1974. Taxpayer filed its income tax return for 1972 on May 17, 1973, and for 1974 on June 13, 1975. On June 2, 1978, the Commissioner mailed taxpayer a notice of deficiency in federal income tax for 1972 in the amount of $298,861, later reduced by stipulation to $227,245 (App. A 45). The majority of the Tax Court accepted taxpayer's argument that the assessment was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations contained in Section 6501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code since the notice of the deficiency for 1972 had not been mailed within 3 years from the date on which taxpayer's return for 1972 had been filed. The Commissioner's position is that since the notice of deficiency was mailed on June 2, 1978, within 3 years from June 13, 1975, the filing date of taxpayer's return for 1974, which reported large net capital losses and unused investment credit carrybacks giving rise to the 1972 deficiency, the notice was timely under Sections 6501(h) and 6501(j).
Taxpayer does not challenge the Commissioner's theory that the 1972 deficiency was attributable to capital loss and investment credit carrybacks from 1974 but relies solely on the Section 6501(a) statute of limitations ( 80 T.C. 654; App. A 6).
The majority of the Tax Court agreed with taxpayer that Section 6501(a) was controlling, even though, as the Supreme Court admonished again this year in Badaracco v. Commissioner, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 756, 761, 78 L.Ed.2d 549, that limitations statutes barring the collection of taxes otherwise due must be strictly construed in favor of the government. In the Tax Court the dissenting judges held that the reduction in the carryover amount of taxpayer's 1971 income tax to 1972 was "attributable to the application to the taxpayer of" the 1974 capital loss and investment credit carrybacks, both of which were effective to reduce its 1971 tax liability and to result in a 1972 deficiency. Following the opinion in Herman Bennett Co. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 506 (1975), the dissenters concluded that the "attributable to" language used in Section 6501(h) and in Section 6501(j) was satisfied because the 1972 deficiency can be "traced to" the carrybacks from 1974, as even the majority conceded ( 80 T.C. 652; App. A 8). This literal construction, uncontradicted by legislative history ( 80 T.C. 666-669; App. A 31-A 34), permits "the [Tax] Court to do what it conceives as equity," quoting from the majority opinion ( 80 T.C. 663; App. A 26).
Even taxpayer's July 30, 1975, refund application for 1974 noted that it was carrying back unused investment credit and net capital loss "from 1974 to 1971 * * *" (App. A 47; emphasis supplied).
We agree with and adopt the dissenting opinion of the Tax Court ( 80 T.C. 663-672; App. A 27-A 41) as our own. Therefore the decision of the Tax Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.