Hosking v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, election made at the trial to compute tax by income averaging is proper, and such computation is to be used in computing deficiency even though overpayment is barred because no return was filed, no tax paid after issuance of notice of deficiency or 2 years before its issuance, and no proper claim for refund filed.
1Opinion of the Court
Scott, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s income tax for the calendar year 1968 in the amount of $2,023.15.1
The issues for decision are:(1) Whether petitioner is entitled to compute his taxable income for the calendar year 1968 pursuant to the income averaging provisions of sections 1301-1305,1.R.C. 1954,2 and(2) If petitioner is entitled to use the income averaging provisions, whether he is entitled to a refund for any overpayment of tax for the calendar year 1968.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Petitioner was a resident…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- California Bankers Assn. v. ShultzSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- United States v. Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- J. E. Riley Investment Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Cupp v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Commissioner v. LundySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Hatfield v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Reiff v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- White v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.