Ratto v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, the gross income stated in petitioner's individual income tax return, though described as "1/2 community income," is limited to the amount stated therein and does not include any amounts stated in her husband's return, and, having concededly omitted gross income in excess of 25 per cent of the amount so stated in her return, the 5-year period of limitation provided by section 275(c), Internal Revenue Code, is applicable.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Bruce, Judge:
The sole issue is whether the assessment and collection of the deficiency determined by respondent for the calendar year 1946 is barred by section 275 of the Internal Revenue Code.2
The notice of deficiency having been mailed more than 3 years but less than 5 year's after the return was filed, the respondent has the burden of proof that the 5-year limitation applies. C. A. Reis, 1 T. C. 9. The applicability of section 275 (c) is dependent upon two tilings: (1) the amount of “gross income stated in the return,” and (2) the amount of gross income the taxpayer omits from the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. MalcolmSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Reis v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1942
- Sullenger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- Green v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- Sutor v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Draper v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Harlan v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2001
- MacMurray v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Robinson v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2001
- Emerzian v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.