Court Opinion

ID: 4488649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-17 22:01:25.279751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:08.848749
License: Public Domain

VaN FossaN,
dissenting: I am unable to agree with the prevailing opinion on the third issue of the case. This issue involved the determination of whether or not the Commissioner has effectively asserted the claim for the additional amount or addition to the tax beyond that set forth in the original notices of deficiencies.
Section 274(e) provides:
The Board shall have jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of the deficiency even if the amount so redetermined is greater than the amount of the1 deficiency, notice of which has been mailed to the taxpayer, and to determine whether any penalty, additional amount or addition to the tax should be assessed, if oladm therefor is asserted, by the Commissioner at or before the hearing or a rehearing. (Italics ours.)
As I read this section, the assertion of a claim for the additional amount or addition to the tax is a prerequisite to the finding by the Board of such additional amount. There are sound considerations of justice and fairness back of such a provision. Petitioner, upon receipt of a notice of a specific deficiency., prepares his petition in reliance on the representations as to the Government’s contentions set forth in the notice. His petition is specifically addressed to those contentions and his preparations to contest the deficiency are confined thereto. Section 274(f) specifically forbids, in cases subsequently arising, the determination of an additional deficiency except in case of fraud or as provided in section 274(e), supra, or in case of a jeopardy assessment under section 279(c). By this prohibition Congress has indicated its disposition to protect the taxpayer from repeated deficiency notices covering the same year or from uncertainty in the issues which he is called on to meet. If the Government proposes a greater deficiency under section 274(e), I believe the taxpayer is entitled to demand that the statute be strictly compliec with and that it be construed strictly against the Government. Hi should not be left to infer the asserting of a claim from the general tenor of affirmative allegations of the amended answer.
In the proceedings under consideration the Commissioner has not asked directly for affirmative relief from his alleged error. He made no motion to increase the deficiency appealed from. Upon permission to amend the answers he incorporated affirmative allegations that he had erroneously allowed obsolescence. The prayer of his answer is that the proceedings be dismissed. He now asks us to hold that this allegation of error on his part constitutes the assertion of a claim for additional tax under the statute. With this I can not agree. In such a situation the taxpayer is entitled to shield himself behind every defense the law affords. The law has provided that a claim shall be asserted for the additional amount of tax. Considering the purpose and language of the statute, this provision would *533seem to require an affirmative act of assertion. Nothing so vital to the rights of a taxpayer as the finding of a greater deficiency should be left to implication. The proper assertion of a claim is not a difficult task if directly essayed. A motion could have been made at any time during the hearing. On the other hand, to infer or imply the assertion of a claim in the instant cases will open the door to loose pleadings and place on the Board in other cases the burden of interpreting the mind of the Commissioner. The statute provides a simple procedure, and having failed to avail himself thereof, the Commissioner has no basis for complaint.
In my opinion respondent has not effectively or properly asserted a claim for the additional amount or addition to the tax as required by law.
Lansdon agrees with this dissent.