Opinion

Cranston v. Commissioner

  • 5 B.T.A. 993
  • 1927 BTA LEXIS 3701
Court
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Filed
Jan 5, 1927
Status
Published
Author
Morris
On the bench
Morris
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 66.0%

The opinion

*995 ORINIOET.

Morris:

The petitioners do not dispute the correctness of the over-assessments for 1920 and 1922 or the deficiencies for 1919, 1921 and 1923. The only question raised is the refusal of the Commissioner to credit the overpayment for 1918 against the deficiencies for those years. The Commissioner contends that the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the year 1918, as his final determination for the year took place in October, 1924, and that he is without authority to refund the taxes paid in 1919 for 1918, as the purported waiver signed by one of the executors subsequent to the expiration of the period allowed by law for making assessment of taxes for the year for which such waiver was given may not, under the laws of California, be considered a valid waiver on which the allowance of a claim for refund may be based. The petitioners contend that the final determination was made by the Commissioner in his letter of March 3, 1925, that under the Appeal of E. J. Barry, 1 B. T. A. 156, and kindred appeals, the Board has jurisdiction of 1918, that the waiver of May 5, 1924, was valid, as the executors and heirs of the estate of R. B. Cranston were the same persons, and that therefore the over- *996 assessment for 1918 should be credited against the net deficiency of $2,487.24.

It is unnecessary for us to go into the various questions raised by the parties to this proceeding. We have no jurisdiction over the year 1918, even though the Commissioner’s final determination as to that year is contained in the deficiency letter of March 3, 1925. Appeal of Cornelius Cotton Mills, 4 B. T. A. 255. As to how an overassessment for any taxable year should be applied is a matter of administrative policy which we have previously held is no part of our duty to decide. Appeal of Cleveland Home Brewing Co., 1 B. T. A. 87; Appeal of Dickerman & Englis, Inc., 5 B. T. A. 633. In the latter appeal we further held that whether credit or refund is barred by the period of limitation provided by the statute is beyond our jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that the determination of the Commissioner must be approved.

Judgment will ~be entered for the Commissioner on 10 days' notice, under Buie 50.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.