Lexplug logoLexplug

Lawrence v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court
27 T.C. 713; 1957 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 276 (1957)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Section 275(c) of the pre-1954 Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer "omits" an amount from gross income if it is not included in the computation of gross income on the return, thereby triggering a 5-year statute of limitations, even if information about the transaction is disclosed in a schedule attached to the return.


Facts:

  • Arthur L. Lawrence acquired stock in the Midway Peerless Oil Company in 1942.
  • On December 15, 1948, the company was liquidated, which resulted in a significant capital gain for Arthur Lawrence.
  • The Lawrences filed a joint federal income tax return for 1948.
  • On their return, the Lawrences did not include over $20,000 of the capital gain in the final computation of their gross income.
  • The amount of capital gain not included in the computation was in excess of 25% of the gross income they did report on the return.
  • The Lawrences did attach a schedule to their return that detailed the transaction and the computation of the gain from the company's liquidation.

Procedural Posture:

  • The petitioners, Arthur and Alma Lawrence, filed a joint federal income tax return for the 1948 tax year.
  • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency in the petitioners' income tax.
  • On May 10, 1954, after the standard 3-year statute of limitations had expired but before a 5-year period had passed, the Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency to the petitioners.
  • The petitioners filed a petition in the Tax Court of the United States, challenging the deficiency on the grounds that the statute of limitations barred its assessment and collection.
  • The parties submitted the case on a stipulation of facts, agreeing on the amount of the deficiency and leaving the statute of limitations as the sole issue for the court to decide.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a taxpayer "omit" from gross income an amount properly includible therein for the purposes of triggering the 5-year statute of limitations under Section 275(c), when the amount is not included in the computation of gross income on the return, but is disclosed in a statement attached to the return?


Opinions:

Majority - Murdock, Judge

Yes. A taxpayer omits an amount from gross income under Section 275(c) if that amount is not included in the final computation of gross income stated on the return, triggering the 5-year statute of limitations. The court held that the plain language of the statute applies regardless of the taxpayer's honesty or the fact that information about the transaction was available elsewhere in the return or its attachments. The court has consistently applied this interpretation, noting that a subsequent change in the law under the 1954 Internal Revenue Code—which explicitly allowed for disclosure in an attached statement to prevent an 'omission'—was not made retroactive and was described by Congress as a 'change from existing law.' This legislative history supports the court's strict interpretation of the prior statute. The court also extensively discussed its institutional role as a national tribunal, asserting its duty to apply tax law uniformly across the nation, even when a particular Circuit Court of Appeals may have adopted a contrary view.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies a strict, literal interpretation of the term 'omits from gross income' under the pre-1954 Internal Revenue Code, establishing that merely providing a 'clue' to the existence of income is insufficient to avoid the extended 5-year statute of limitations. This case is also legally significant for the Tax Court's lengthy assertion of its institutional prerogative to maintain a uniform, nationwide application of tax law, even in the face of contrary precedent in the specific circuit to which a case might be appealed. This principle of national uniformity, predating the Golsen rule, highlights the unique jurisdictional role of the Tax Court in the federal system and its responsibility to avoid creating conflicting tax rules based on geography.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Lawrence v. Commissioner (1957) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Lawrence v. Commissioner