Case Name: R. R. ATTERBURY, SOLE SURVIVING PARTNER OF THE PARTNERSHIP VAN EMBURGH & ATTERBURY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1932-05-31
Citations: 75 Ct. Cl. 191
Docket Number: No. L-135
Parties: R. R. ATTERBURY, SOLE SURVIVING PARTNER OF THE PARTNERSHIP VAN EMBURGH & ATTERBURY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; GeeeN, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 191–195

Head Matter:
R. R. ATTERBURY, SOLE SURVIVING PARTNER OF THE PARTNERSHIP VAN EMBURGH & ATTERBURY, v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. L-135.
Decided May 31, 1932]
Mr. Robert Ash for the plaintiff.
Mr. J. A. Rees, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg, ‘for the defendant. Mr. John W. Hussey was on the brief.

Opinion:
LittletoN, Judge,
delivered the opinion:
Plaintiff contends that the filing of the return of income, Form 1065, was sufficient to start the running of the statute of limitation on its excess-profits tax liability and that, therefore, the excess-profits tax of $15,751.36 for 1918 was collected one month after the expiration of the statute of limitation of five years from the date on which the return of income, Form 1065, was filed.
The commissioner held, and the defendant here contends, that the return of income, Form 1065, filed April 1, 1918, was not sufficient to start the running of the statute of limitation on the assessment and collection of the excess-profits tax for 1917. We are of opinion that the defendant is correct and that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The partnership had a large invested capital for 1917 and was therefore required under the statute, the regulations, and the instructions contained on the excess-profits tax return, Form 1102, to make and file an excess-profits tax return. It did not do so and the statute of limitation did not therefore run against the collection of the additional tax. McDonnell & Truda v. United States, No. L-14, decided this date [ante, p. 175].
The petition is therefore dismissed. It is so ordered.
Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; GeeeN, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.