Opinion

Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner

  • 353 U.S. 180
  • 77 S. Ct. 707
  • 1 L. Ed. 2d 746
  • 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1724
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed
Jun 3, 1957
Status
Published
Author
Burton
On the bench
Brennan, Burton, Harlan, Whittaker, Clark
Cited by
694 cases

holding that information returns which “lack the data necessary for the computation and assessment of deficiencies ... are not tax returns within the contemplation of § 375(a) [the predecessor to § 6501]”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that information returns which “lack the data necessary for the computation and assessment of deficiencies ... are not tax returns within the contemplation of § 375(a) [the predecessor to § 6501]”
  • finding a clear statement authorizing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to correct tax rulings and regulations “retroactively” where the statutory authorization for the Commissioner’s action spoke explicitly in terms of “retroactivity”
  • stating that IRS is not estopped from correcting an earlier mistake of law
  • holding that federal tax authority could retroactively revoke prior ruling granting taxpayer an exemption where prior ruling was erroneously granted

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Mr. Justice Burton,

whom Mr. Justice Clark joins,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join in the Court’s opinion insofar as it holds (a) that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion under § 3791 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 when, in 1946, he revoked previous rulings exempting petitioner from federal income taxes and directed petitioner to file returns for 1943 and 1944, and (b) that assessment of deficiencies for those years was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Harlan, I dissent from the Court’s holding that the Commissioner acted within his discretion under § 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 when he determined, in reliance upon the “claim of right” doctrine, that petitioner’s method of accounting for prepaid membership dues did not clearly reflect its income.

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.