not directly mentioning "estoppel" though effectively estopping IRS from changing its characterization of corporations as separate entities after treating them as such throughout multiple transactions
How later courts described this case
- not directly mentioning "estoppel" though effectively estopping IRS from changing its characterization of corporations as separate entities after treating them as such throughout multiple transactions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GREEN, Judge
(concurring).
If the Commissioner had not refused to accept a consolidated return for part of the taxable year in controversy and had then held in accordance with the contentions made on behalf of the defendant at this time that the Delaware and Michigan companies were one for taxation purposes, there would have been no deficiency in the tax payments. But; under' the ruling that he made with reference to the period of the affiliated status of the companies involved, á deficiency was assessed against one.company which exceeded in a very large sum the overpayment found to be made by the other. His ruling in computing the tax is conceded to be correct, and, if it was correct when the amount of taxes was fixed, it 'was also correct and must be applied when'the amount of interest is to be determined. I do not think the government can assign a certain status to a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes and then give it another status in refusing to allow interest. For these reasons I concur in both of the foregoing opinions.