Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96990/j-e-riley-investment-co-vs-commissioner
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 03:43:08
Document Index: 523078243

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 114', '§ 114', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 114', '§ 114', 'Art. 43']

J E Riley Investment Co Vs Commissioner - Citation 96990 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize J.E. Riley Investment Co. Vs. Commissioner - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/96990CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnNov-12-1940Case Number311 U.S. 55AppellantJ.E. Riley Investment Co.RespondentCommissionerExcerpt:.....held
that an amended return, filed after the expiration of the statutory period for filing the original return, including such extension of the period as the commissioner was empowered to grant, was not a "first return" within the meaning of the section. p.
311 u. s. 57
2. that, in the circumstances of this case, the construction thus given the statute works a hardship on the taxpayer, may be the basis of an appeal to congress for relief, but not to the courts. p.
3. the judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming the decision of the board of tax appeals in this case was correct, and must be sustained whether or not the court gave a wrong reason for its action. p.
J.E. Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner - 311 U.S. 55 (1940)
1. In the computation of net income in the case of mines, § 114(b)(4) of the Revenue Act of 1934 permits deductions for depletion on a percentage basis provided that the taxpayer in making his "first return" under the Act elects to avail of that basis.
This case is here on certiorari to resolve the conflict of the decision below (9 Cir., 110 F.2d 655) with
C.H. Mead Coal Co. v. Commissioner,
106 F.2d 388.
Petitioner is engaged in the business of mining gold at Flat, Alaska. The winter mail service to and from that remote place was so uncertain, and slow that, in order to avoid delinquency in income tax returns, petitioner's officers were accustomed to use the forms for an earlier year. Consequently petitioner's original return for the calendar year 1934 was filed on a 1933 form which had been mailed to petitioner by the Collector at Tacoma, Washington. This return was executed on January 2, 1935, and reached Tacoma on January 29, 1935. When it was executed, petitioner did not know of the provision [
] in the Revenue
of § 114(b)(4). By § 53(a)(1) of the 1934 Act, the return was due on or before March 15, 1935. By § 53(a)(2), the Commissioner was empowered to grant a reasonable extension for filing returns, [
] but, so far as applicable here, not exceeding six months.
, would compel the conclusion that, had the amended return been filed within the period allowed for filing the original return, it would have been a "first return" within the meaning of § 114(b)(4). But we can find no statutory support for the view that an amendment making the election provided for in that section may be filed as of right after the expiration of the statutory period for filing the original return.
We are not dealing with an amendment designed merely to correct errors and miscalculations in the original return. Admittedly the Treasury has been liberal in accepting such amended returns even though filed after the period for filing original returns. [
] This, however, is not a case where a taxpayer is merely demanding a correct computation of his tax for a prior year based on facts as they existed. Petitioner is seeking by this amendment not only to change the basis upon which its taxable income was computed for 1934, but to adopt a new method of computation for all subsequent years. That opportunity was afforded as a matter of legislative grace; the election had to be made in the manner and in the time prescribed by Congress. The offer was liberal. But the method of its acceptance was restricted. The offer permitted an election only in an original return or in a timely amendment. An amendment for the purposes of § 114(b)(4) would be timely only if filed within the
Finally, petitioner asserts that we cannot consider the question of the timeliness of the amended return, since, before the Board of Tax Appeals and the Circuit Court of Appeals, respondent urged only that petitioner's claim was based upon an amended, rather than an original, return. But even on the assumption that that issue did not embrace the question of timeliness, the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in affirming the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. Where the decision below is correct, it must be affirmed by the appellate court though the lower tribunal gave a wrong reason for its action.
302 U. S. 245
Treasury Regulations No. 86, Arts. 53-1 - 53-4 inc.
Treasury Regulations No. 86, Art. 43-2, governing the filing of amended returns for the purpose of deducting losses which were sustained during a prior taxable year.
Union Metal Mfg. Co., 1 B.T.A. 395.