stating that upon determining the Commissioner’s valuation to be arbitrary, the Board of Tax Appeals should have conducted a “further hearing” in which it “heard evidence to show whether a fair apportionment might be made and, if so, the correct amount of the tax”
How later courts described this case
- stating that upon determining the Commissioner’s valuation to be arbitrary, the Board of Tax Appeals should have conducted a “further hearing” in which it “heard evidence to show whether a fair apportionment might be made and, if so, the correct amount of the tax”
- holding that a determination is presumed correct if it has a rational foundation and is not arbitrary and excessive
- holding that the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Commissioner if the taxpayer shows that the notice of deficiency underlying the proceeding is arbitrary
- explaining that, in a refund suit, if taxpayer fails to prove the amount due, taxpayer may not recover everything owed to him “even though we know that the tax is too high”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 29 T.C.M. 888 (1970)
Petitioner having not sustained her burden of proving that any loss occurred (see p. 11, infra), the doctrine of Helvering v. Taylor, supra, clearly is inapplicable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Stone,
dissenting.
I think the judgment should be reversed.
As respondent failed to establish any amount by which the deficiency fixed by the Commissioner should be reduced, the Board of Tax Appeals was without authority, under the statute defining its jurisdiction, to disturb the determination of the Commissioner, c. 27, §§ 274 (b) (e), 906 (c) (d), 44 Stat. 9 , 55, 56, 107; 26 U. S. C., §§ 1048a, 1048c, 1217 (c) (d). If, under § 906 (d), it was the duty of the Board to dismiss the petition and enter on its records ,a finding that it could not determine the amount of the deficiency, these requirements are formal only. Its failure to comply with them does not require a reversal of its order sustaining the action of the Commissioner or in any case afford ground for decision on appeal that the Board should have held the Commissioner’s determination invalid or that'it should now take further evidence.