Lawrence v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
9th Cir.
Arthur L. LAWRENCE and Alma P. Lawrence, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Attorneys
- Little, LeSourd, Palmer, Scott & Slemmons, Brockman Adams, Max D. Crittenden, Seattle, Wash., for petitioners.
- Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Grant W. Wiprud, Lee A. Jackson, David O. Walter, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
majority
When a taxpayer has made a full disclosure of his “position” with respect to his gross income on his income tax return (a disclosure that would arrest the attention of the Internal Revenue Service upon its examination of the return), but has not “included” the amount involved as taxable, is the Collector of Internal Revenue subject to the ordinary three year limitation of § 275(a) or to the special five year statute, § 275(c), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 ?
No fraud was suggested.
The Tax Court, rejecting Slaff v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 220 F.2d 65, held the five year statute applicable and that the collector’s notice of deficiency mailed four years, eleven months and ten days after the filing of the return in 1949 was timely.
After this case was argued, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a parallel case, Colony, Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 355 U.S. 811, 78 S.Ct. 51, 2 L.Ed.2d 29. See same case, in the Sixth Circuit, 244 F.2d 75.
The Supreme Court has now reversed Colony, 78 S.Ct. 1033, decided June 9, 1958. On the authority of Colony, the decision of the Tax Court is reversed.
. 53Stat. 86.
. That is, was there an omission.
. 53 Stat. 87.
Chat with this case using AI
Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.