Atterbury v. United States

2 Citing cases

  1. Henk v. Columbus Auto Supply, Inc.

    257 Minn. 255 (Minn. 1960)

    In McDonnell v. United States, 75 Ct. Cl. 175, 59 F.2d 295, it was held that the balance sheet which the taxpayer partnership attached to its normal income tax return on Form 1065 was not a sufficient compliance with the statute and regulations requiring the filing of an excess profits tax return. There is a similar holding in Atterbury v. United States, 75 Ct. Cl. 191, 59 F.2d 300. By a divided court, two to one, it was held in United States v. Tillinghast (1 Cir.) 69 F.2d 718, that where income tax return showed no profits, failure to file supplementary return under excess profits tax was not "failure to file required return."

  2. United States v. Tillinghast

    69 F.2d 718 (1st Cir. 1934)   Cited 9 times

    In face of all the decisions by the courts, however, in which they have held that a return for excess profits tax was not a part of the return for a normal tax but supplementary thereto, and have held that it was a separate return, and since the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in several such cases, I do not think I can agree that the statute of limitations as to excess profits taxes began to run in this case at the time of the filing of the return No. 1031. McDonnell v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 59 F.2d 295; Atterbury v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 59 F.2d 300. Bean v. Hamilton (C.C.A.) 289 F. 9; United States v. Updike (D.C.) 1 F.2d 550.