Mysteries of Mitigation: The Opening of Barred Years in Income Tax Cases
Mysteries of Mitigation: The O pening of Barred Years in Income Tax Cases
Daniel Candee Knickerbocker 0 1
0 Thi s Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The F ordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The F ordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information , please contact
1 Daniel Candee Knickerbocker, Jr., Mysteries of Mitigation: Th e Opening of Barred Years in Income Tax Cases , 30 Fordham L. Rev. 225 (1961). Available at:
DANIEL CANDEE KNICKERBOCKER, JR.*
SECTIONS 1311 through 1315 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
are entitled "litigation of Effect of Limitations and Other
Provisions."' In the limited circumstances specified therein, these sections
permit the opening of a taxable year otherwise barred "by the operation
of any law or rule of law,"2 in order to validate a taxpayer's claim for
refund of an income tax overpayment or the Government's assessment
of an income tax deficiency.
Originally enacted as Section 820 of the Revenue Act of 1938,3 and
included in the 1939 Code as section 3801,I the form and wording of the
statute have changed very little during the past twenty-three years.4 By
* Member of the New York Bar.
1. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, subtitle A, ch. 1, subchapter Q, pt. II. These provisions
will sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "mitigation statute" or the "mitigation
2. See Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1311(a).
3. Revenue Act of 193S, ch. 289, § 820, 52 Stat. 581.
4. Int. Rev. Code of 1939, ch.38, § 3S01, 53 Stat. 471.
5. The changes may be summarized as follows: Revenue Act of 1942, ch. 619, § 504(a),
56 Stat. 957 (conforming changes required by reason of change of name of Board of
Tax Appeals to Tax Court); Revenue Act of 1944, ch. 210, § 14(b), 55 Stat. 246
(conforming changes in § 3301(d) with respect to definition of "tax previouwly determined");
Revenue Act of 1950, ch. S09, § 20S(c), 64 Stat. 544 (addition of subsection (g) in order
to expressly exclude employment taxes from operation of statute); Revenue Act of 1953,
ch. 512, § 211(a), 67 Stat. 625 (added new categories (6) and (7) to the enumeration of
circumstances of adjustment in § 301(b)-the former dealing with the disallowance of
deductions or credits properly allowable (but not allowcd) for some other taxable ycar,
and the latter involving the exclusion from gross income of some item properly includable
in some other year's or other taxpayer's gross income); Int. Rev. Code of 1954, §
1313(a) (4) (provision for special agreements between Service and taxpayer qualifng as
determinations for purpose of statute); Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1314(b) (reviion of
computation method to reflect net operating loss carrybach); Int. Rev. Code of 1954,
§ 1311(a) (addition of words "or rule of law" to make it clear that cosed year barred by
operation of res judicata, etc., may also be opened under statute); Int Rev. Code of 1954,
§ 1312(3)(A) (expansion of description of cases involving double exclusions from income
to include both those in which taxpayer has included the income in his return for the
wrong year, and those wholly omitted from a return); Int. Rev. Code of 19S4, § 1312(6)
(expansion of basis circumstance to include determinations of bass for any purpose and
to include among errors, transactions erroneously treated as affecting basis and erroneous
allowances of deductions for expenses properly chargeable to capital account or erroneaus
charges of deductible expenses to capital account; also makes corrections available to
taxpayer who owned property at time of error); Technical Amendments Act of 1958,
judicial gloss, however, its scope and meaning have been both expanded
This law-making by the courts is not the result of the ordinary
extension of old language to fit new circumstances. In this instance, it
appears to spring, first, from what has been called a "pronounced
dichotomy in judicial attitudes" whereby some courts have construed
the statute strictly and others liberally to produce "a concurrent
development of conflicting case law . . . ";0 and, second, from the complexity
of the law's provisions.
In support of their views, the strict constructionists rely on the canon
that enactments in derogation of a fundamental principle of law-here,
the statute of limitations-should be held strictly within their original
language and express scope. This position in the case of the mitigation
statute has most frequently been taken by the Tax Court, 7 but there
are also examples of the same position being adopted in a number of
district courts and courts of appeals.8 The Court of Claims, on the
other hand, has characterized the mitigation statute as "a relief
provision" which "should, if necessary, be given a liberal interpretation
in order fully to carry out its apparent purpose.' This view has also
been accepted by some of the federal district courts and some of the
courts of appeals. °
Considering the statute in purely historical terms, and in the light
of the extant evidence of its draftsmen's intent, one is impelled to the
conclusion that those who construe it strictly are correct in their attitude.
A much-quoted paragraph of the Senate Finance Committee's
description of the bill proposed in 1938, reads in part:
In each case, under existing law, an unfair benefit would have been obtained by
assuming an inconsistent position and then taking shelter behind the protective barrier
of the statute of limitations. Such resort to the statute of limitations is a plain misuse
of its fundamental purpose. The purpose of the statute of limitations to prevent the
litigation of stale claims is fully recognized and approved. But it was never intended
to sanction active exploitation, by the beneficiary of the statutory bar, of opportunities
only open to him if he assumes a position diametrically opposed to that taken prior
to -the running of the statute.... Legislation has long been needed to supplement the
equitable principles applied by the courts and to check the growing volume of
litigation by taking the profit out of inconsistency, whether exhibited by taxpayers or
revenue officials and whether fortuitous or the result of design."1
This language is crystal clear. Congress was creating a penalty, not
passing an act for anybody's relief. The draftsmen adopted the most
direct method imaginable; if, after the statute had run, the
Commissioner or the taxpayer stirred things up again, the new law came into
play to exact a forfeit.
The same conclusion as to congressional intent is implicit in what
the legislature did not do as well as in what it did. A vast body of law
was left untouched by the new section. As the authors of one of the
first commentaries observed, a double inclusion in income or a double
deduction is no more unfair to the taxpayer or to the Government than
a single erroneous inclusion or deduction.' 2 The loss is identical. Only
the erroneous item produces too much or too little tax. Nevertheless,
no one has suggested lifting the statutory bar in every instance of over
or underpayment. However cruel the workings of limitations, Congress
affirming 5S-2 U.S. Tax Cas. 1 9740 (S.D. II. 1958); United States v. Rosenberger, 235
F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1956), affirming 13S F. Supp. 117 (E.D. Mo. 1955); Esterbrook Pen
Co. v. United States, 60-2 U.S. Tax Cas. t 9609 (D.NJ. 1960); Rushlight v. United States,
60-1 U.S. Tax Cas. 9309 (D. Ore. 1960), rev'd, 291 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1961). Many, if not
most, of the commentaries on the mitigation statute view it as a relief measure. E.g., Burford,
Basis of Property After Erroneous Treatment of a Prior Transaction, 12 Tax L. Rev. 365, 366
(1957); Holland, Tax Consequences of Inconsistent Positions--A Review of Section 301,
N.Y.U. 10th Inst. on Fed. Tax 807, 0SS(1952); Note, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1536, 1546 (1959).
11. S. Rep. No. 1567, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 49 (1933). But cf. H.R. Rep. No. 2330, 7Sth
Cong., 3d Sass. 56 (1933), which talks of "mitigation of some of the inequities under the
income-tax laws ... which now prevent equitable adjustment of various income-tax
hardships." The history of the mitigation statute and a description of the situation that prompted
its enactment are contained in Maguire, Surrey & Traynor, Section SZ0 of the Revenue Act
of 1938, 43 Yale LJ. 509-15 (1939).
12. Maguire, Surrey & Traynor, supra note 11, at 515.
has not, either in 1938 or since, evinced any desire to abolish them or
make them less effective. Rather, it seems generally recognized that
"it probably would be all but intolerable . . . to have an income
tax system under which there never would come a day of final
Equally cogent is the argument on practical grounds. If, in spite of
the contrary evidence, you choose to regard the mitigation sections as a
species of bonanza and therefore eligible for liberal construction, how
do you go about being liberal with the complex, technical, and highly
detailed provisions of sections 1311 through 1315? Here either
liberalism cannot be applied meaningfully,14 or its meaning is that you will
casually ignore whatever statutory language will not permit the desired
A final objection to liberalism arises from the anomalous way in
which we have chosen to distribute the jurisdiction in determining tax
controversies, i.e., turning the taxpayer who wishes to contest an unpaid
deficiency to the Tax Court, but reserving the litigation of his denied
refund claims to the district courts and Court of Claims. As already
noted, the principal seat of strict construction in mitigation cases is the
Tax Court; 5 the liberal view has been most often voiced by the Court
of Claims. 6 The consequence is that the Government enters these cases
with a sort of built-in handicap. To assert the applicability of
sections 1311 through 1315, the Commissioner must appear before the
Tax Court with its insistence upon rigid adherence to the statute; but
if the reopening of the closed year is initiated by the taxpayer,
appearance is before a court where his claim "will, at least, receive a more
sympathetic hearing" than would ever be given his adversary.' 7 The
danger of revenue loss in such a situation is only too obvious. Though
intended originally as a two-edged sword to be wielded by an impartial
justice, the penalty of mitigation has come, by judicial division, more
nearly to resemble a spear in the hands of the taxpayers.
The law's second disability is its complexity. Sections 1311 through
13. Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 329 U.S. 296, 301 (1946).
14. Cf. Note, 72 Hary. L. Rev. 1536, 1546 (1959).
15. See note 7 supra and accompanying text.
16. See note 9 supra and accompanying text. The attitude of the Court of Claims In
these and similar cases has been attributed to an "extraordinarily evident desire . . . to
disregard technical rules . . . if the taxpayer can make a convincing case that he has paid
to the Government more tax than it is in good conscience entitled to retain. . . ."
Pavenstedt, The United States Court of Claims as a Forum for Tax Cases, 15 Tax L. Rev. 201,
17. Burford, Basis of Property After Erroneous Treatment of Prior Transaction, 12 Tax
L. Rev. 365, 370 (1957).
1315, like their predecessors, are long, detailed and specific. They
abound in what Judge Charles Clark has called "the complicated form
of expression which seems an occupational trait of revenue legislation.?1"
Moreover, their key terms are most imprecisely defined and used1.
For these reasons, it is neither surprising nor cause for criticism when
error creeps into the argument and decision of cases. Who can blame
the lawyer or judge who, occasionally, instead of reading the law, merely
guesses at what it says?
We should expect lapses of this sort when we ask our courts to deal
with such highly technical enactments. The cases already decided, and
those to come, construing the rules relating to, say, collapsible
corporations, or optional adjustments to the basis of partnership property,
will undoubtedly reveal oversights just as egregious as those shortly
to be catalogued. And the inevitability of error may be our strongest
argument in favor of a shorter, simpler code whose broadly drawn
provision need only be implemented rather than rewritten at the
administrative and judicial levels. On the other hand, the particularity of the
sections here considered conforms to the legislative intent underlying their
adoption. The exception to the operation of the statute of limitations was
deliberately confined to a few predetermined cases. This then was no
early emanation from the drafting philosophy of "specificity at all
cost."" Rather, it was an attempt to draw the boundaries of a very
circumscribed territory. In this light, the statute's minutiae, however,
regrettable, are seen also as necessary.
In simplest terms, before a closed year may be reopened for
adjustment under sections 1311 through 1315, the following conditions must
have been met:
First, there must have been a "determination." This is a defined term.
It includes a court decision that has become final, a closing agreement,
the final disposition of a claim for refund, or a special agreement
between taxpayer and Government for the specific purposes of the
mitigation statute 2 The first and second types of determination are, of
course, final dispositions of tax controversies, and the third is relatively
final, being subject only to the infrequently invoked remedy of the suit
to recover an erroneous refund provided in section 7405. The special
agreements, which were first authorized in 1954, are not final; as long
as the year remains open, both taxpayer and Commissioner are free
to "pursue any of the procedures provided by law to secure a further
modification of the tax liability for such year . . . ," including the
adoption of "a position with respect to the item that was the subject
of the adjustment that is at variance with the manner in which said
item was treated in the agreement."22 The special agreements, then,
depart from the original concept of the mitigation statute, which was
kept inoperative until final disposition because "an inequity resulting
from a decision in a prior stage of consideration ... may disappear upon
final action ... ;"'I
Second, the determination must effect one or more of the seven types
of change in the taxable income of the taxpayer (or of a related
taxpayer) enumerated in section 1312;24
Third, except in two specific cases," the determination must adopt a
position maintained either by the Commissioner or by the taxpayer,
as the case may be, which is inconsistent with an error made in some
other taxable year or an error made by some related taxpayer; 0
Finally, the correction of the error must be barred by operation of
some law or rule of law.27
It is the purpose of this article to examine a number of the decisions
to ascertain, if possible, how closely these statutory requirements have
This requirement has been ignored in a number of cases, both in the
Tax Court and elsewhere. For reasons that are not apparent, there is
a tendency among lawyers to urge and, occasionally, among judges to
accept the proposition that tax overpayments or underpayments of
prior closed years may be used to adjust the tax liability actually being
In Suckow Borax Mines Consol., Inc.,P the taxpayer, as lessor of a
mine, was obligated to pay half of the cost (but not more than $12,000
per year) of all capital improvements made by the lessee. In 1934,
improvements in the indicated amount were made and the lessee
recovered the lessor's share of the cost thereof by withholding it from
the rent. On its tax return for 1934, the lessor included in income only
the net rental received by it. Nevertheless, when the mine was sold
in 1942, the taxpayer-lessor computed its taxable gain by including in
its basis its share of the 1934 improvement cost. In the instant
proceeding, arising from the assertion of a deficiency for the year of sale
resulting from the exclusion of such 1934 cost from basis, the court
held that the taxpayer had properly reported its gain. However,
petitioner ... will be required to recompute its income tax for 1934 under section
3801 of the Code by including therein, in income, the amount... [by which basis
has been adjusted in this proceeding]; and there must be added to depletion
allowances from 1935 to December 31, 1942, an amount vith respect to this addition to
mine development .... Effect will be given to this adjustment of depletion under
The issue in J. Rogers Flanncry, JrY' was the deductibility, as a
loss, of expenses incurred in developing an invention in which the
taxpayer, in 1941, was held to have had no interest. Some of such expenses
had been treated as current expenditures, deducted on the taxpayer's
returns for 1937 and 1938, and never questioned by the Internal
Revenue Service. The taxpayer now argued, however, that, because
these expenses were really part of his cost, they constituted part of the
loss he had suffered in 1941. He further asserted that it was immaterial
that they had previously (and erroneously) been deducted. Presumably
it was these erroneous deductions that the court had in mind when, in
allowing the deduction as claimed, it held that the amount thereof "must
be adjusted in accordance with section 3801 of the Internal Revenue
In Bauman v. United States,3" the original pleadings did not involve
a mitigation issue. During the trial, however, the taxpayer, attempting
to establish the basis of securities sold during the year in question,
argued that payments received by her in earlier closed years had been
taxable dividends which did not reduce such basis. In connection with
this argument, she conceded that, since the dividends had not been
included in her reported income for the closed years and no tax had
been paid thereon, the Government could recover the tax under
section 3801. Thereafter, the court announced judgment for the taxpayer
but gave the Government thirty days in which to interpose a
counterclaim based on the concession. Nowhere in the report of the case is
there any recognition that the validity of the Government's claim
depended upon a judgment on the taxpayer's complaint, and then, only
if such judgment had become final.
But this was not the end. The taxpayer's concession in Bauman was
turned into a bootstrap operation in Rosenberger v. United States."'
There the argument was made that the judgment on the Government's
counterclaim in the earlier case was a determination which opened yet
another barred year. This entitled the taxpayer to a refund on the
same theory that had prevailed in Bauman. One wonders here if
mitigation cannot, on occasion, take us into a hail of mirrors where each
decision is reflected in yet another lawsuit. Is a judgment under the
mitigation statute a determination of the sort required by the statute
itself? The Rosenberger case certainly so holds. Moreover, there is
nothing in the statute that expressly prohibits such a result. On the
other hand, the thought of endless actions to correct errors all the way
back to 193111 is somewhat appalling. We might well consider here an
amendment of the law which would permit the correction of all related
errors in a single lawsuit.
This is not to suggest that Congress overrule the decision in First
Nat'l Bank of Philadelphia3. There the issue was the proper year of
deduction for a state tax. Having sustained the Commissioner's
disallowance of the deduction for the year for which taxpayer claimed it,
32. Id. at 336.
33. 106 F. Supp. 384 (E.D. Mo. 1952).
34. 138 F. Supp. 117 (E.D. Mo. 1955), aff'd, 235 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1956).
35. Adjustments under the mitigation statute may be made in respect of any taxable
year beginning on or after January 1, 1932. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1314(d).
36. 18 T.C. 899 (1952), aff'd, 205 F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1953).
the court refused to extend the principle to earlier years as urged by
the taxpayer. The fact that the deductions claimed for those earlier
years were for taxes imposed by the same statute was not a sufficient
relationship with the deduction being disallowed to bring mitigation
But a statutory change of the sort here suggested might prevent
errors like those involved in SoRelle and GilHP discussed later in this
The case of H. T. Hackney Co. v. Uzited Statess9 is frequently cited
as an example of what not to do in deciding a mitigation case. One of
its disabilities is its strained application of the determination
requirement. The plaintiff in 1939 discovered that over a period of years one
of its store managers had been systematically reporting overstated
inventories. This had had the effect of erroneously increasing income
(and, therefore, the amount of tax paid) for most of the years involved.
The taxpayer filed and was allowed a refund claim for 1938. The
Commissioner determined a deficiency for 1939 which was paid. In
1943, after the period of limitations had run, refund claims for 1933,
1934, 1935, and 1936 were filed. After these were disallowed, the
taxpayer sued in the Court of Claims which gave judgment for the
taxpayer on the ground that the mitigation statute applied. In answer to
the Government's contention that there had been no determination to
produce this effect, the court replied:
We think it is clear that there was a final determination... when the Commissioner,
in a final determination on the claim for refund for 1933, gave authoritative sanction
to the inconsistent treatment by plaintiff in its amended returns for 1938 and 1939
with that which had occurred in the years 1933 to and including the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1938.40
Thus, the Commissioner had opened the barred years by accepting
the taxpayer's view of the matter for an open year. Although the grant
or denial of a claim for refund is listed in the statute as one of the actions
constituting a determination, the statute makes it quite clear that
mitigation is not touched off by every determination. The determination relied
on must be one that adopts a position maintained by the party
(Commissioner or taxpayer) who will be adversely affected by the mitigation
claim.4' The determination in Hackney, of course, adopted a position
maintained by the taxpayer, the beneficiary of mitigation, and was
therefore clearly outside the statute.
37. 31 T.C. 272 (1953), acq., 1959-1 Cum. Bull. S.
38. 35 T.C. 120S (1961).
39. 111 CL CL 664, 78 F. Supp. 101 (194S).
40. Id. at 6S0-81, 78 F. Supp. at 110.
41. See note 26 supra and accompanying text.
The determination requirement, if properly applied, would have made
unnecessary the very obvious soul searching of the court in Sherover v.
United States42 with respect to other provisions of the mitigation statute.
In the earlier case of Worth S.S. Corp.4,3 the Tax Court had decided that
income from the operation of a ship was not taxable to the corporation
which held title thereto. Having so decided, the court was not required
to make any finding as to the amount of such income or as to the liability
of the real owners of the ship (one of whom was Sherover) as
transferees, for the corporation's taxes. Nevertheless, on the supposition that
such findings might be necessary, the parties stipulated in advance of
decision as to the amount of the income. Since the stipulation involved
a concession by the Government that certain expenditures originally
charged to capital account had actually been deductible expenses, it was
also stipulated that taxpayers, in determining their gains upon disposition
of the ship in a subsequent year, would reduce the ship's basis by the
amount of the allowed deductions. The stipulations were made a part
of the record44 and, in the light of the court's decision, were wholly
Following the decision, the Commissioner assessed, and Sherover paid,
a deficiency for the year of the ship's sale based upon the reduction of
basis and resulting increase in gain in accordance with the stipulation.
It was at this point that Sherover sought to reopen the closed year to
obtain a refund of taxes overpaid because he had not claimed the
deductions stipulated in the Tax Court proceeding to have been allowable. The
court quite properly held that the closed year could not be reopened. Its
ground for so holding, however, was not the absence of a determination,
but rather the taxpayer's failure to show that one of the circumstances
of adjustment was present. Would it not have been easier for the court
if it had addressed itself to the determination question? There were only
two events to which taxpayer could look that resembled a determination,
and neither qualified; the irrelevant stipulation in the Tax Court had no
more force than dictum, and the assessment of additional tax for the
year of sale, having been paid, had never achieved the required finality.
Granting that there is no special primacy given to any of the
requirements of the mitigation statute-either by the statute itself or as a
principle of construction-it does seem desirable to look to the easiest
requirements first and to refrain, wherever possible, from deciding the
more difficult issues that arise when we try, for example, to construe the
enumerated circumstances of adjustment.
42. 137 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiana, 239 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1956).
43. 7 T.C. 654, acq., 1946-2 Cum. Bull. 5.
44. Brief for Appellant, p. 5, and Reply Brief for Appellant, p. 1, Sherover v. United
States, 239 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1956).
MYSTERIES OF I1TIGATION
The most recent decision in this area, Estcrbrook Pen Co. v. United
States," seems on its face almost to invent the required determination.
The court first disallowed a deduction for 1952
(on the ground that it
should have been claimed for 1953)
, and found that such disallowance
constituted a "determination." It then held that 1953 could be opened
pursuant to section 1311(a) "because the required determination had
It is at least arguable that the determination requirement is unduly
harsh. Although the rule is logically defensible on the ground that both
Government and taxpayer are entitled to have the issues in the open year
finally decided before proceeding to correct errors in closed years, the
rule can, nevertheless, produce hardship. Suppose, for example, the case
of an item of income which should properly be included on this year's
return and which was inadvertently included on a return for some previous
(and now barred) year. There appears to be no way in which the
taxpayer can correct his error without being out of pocket, for a rather
extended period, an amount equal to two years' tax on the income in
question. To obtain the determination that will open the earlier year,
he must first pay the correct tax for this year. (Assuming the facts are
now known to him, he really has no alternative to correct reporting since
his return will be signed "under the penalties of perjury.") Thereafter,
he can proceed, either by way of a claim for refund (again "under the
penalties of perjury") or a section 1313 (a) (4) special agreement, to
obtain a determination that this payment was correct. Only after all this
will he be able to seek the refund to which he is entitled, and how soon
such refund will be forthcoming is problematical. In the meantime, he
may well have been faced with a serious working capital shortage.
The possibility of such a delay and the judiciary's traditional
abhorrence of multiple lawsuits probably account in large measure for the
way in which the determination requirement has been ignored,
particularly in those cases in which the party who will be adversely affected
by mitigation is willing to concede its applicability. It does seem,
however, as if the problem might be solved without recourse to judicial
amendment. Even without a change, should not both Government and
taxpayers be content with whatever exception to limitations the
legislature has seen fit to give them?
The courts appear to have encountered even more difficulty in
applying the statutory rule that mitigation is available only if there
45. 60-2 U.S. Tax Cas. 9 9609 (D.N.J. 1960).
46. Id. at 77,603.
has been adopted, in the determination, a position inconsistent with "the
erroneous inclusion, exclusion, omission, allowance, disallowance,
recognition, or nonrecognition, as the case may be .... " in the barred year.47
Where adjustment under the mitigation sections will result in a refund,
the inconsistent position must have been maintained by the
Commissioner; where it will result in a deficiency, it is the taxpayer who must
have been inconsistent.
In Heer-Andres Inv. Co.,4 8 the taxpayer, as lessor of certain business
property, was entitled to receive, within ten days after the close of its
fiscal year each January 31st, a rental payment determined by reference
to the lessee's net sales for the twelve month period ended on the same
date. Although taxpayer kept its books and filed its returns on the
accrual basis, it regularly reported these payments in the taxable years
in which they were actually received. Finally, upon audit of its return
for the year ended January
, the Commissioner determined a
deficiency by adding to income for that year the rent paid February 10,
1946. The case went to the Tax Court. There the taxpayer argued first,
that its method of reporting the rentals only when received had been
correct and, alternatively, that if the payment received February 10,
1946 must be included in 1945-1946 income, then the one received
February 10, 1945 must be excluded therefrom.
It was the second view of the matter that was adopted by the Tax
Thereafter, the Commissioner returned to the lists with a new
deficiency notice. This time it was for fiscal 1944-1945 and the issue was
the includability of the rent collected February 10, 1945. Since the
statute had run on this taxable year, the mitigation section was invoked.
The Tax Court held the remedy unavailable.
Pointing out the statutory requirement of an inconsistent position,
the opinion of Judge Withey expressly found that it was the
Commissioner, not the taxpayer, who had been inconsistent. The Commissioner's
position in the original case, in which he sought, unsuccessfully, to tax
in one fiscal year the rent for both fiscal 1944-1945 and fiscal 1945-1946
was inconsistent with his position for fiscal 1946-1947 in which he
collected the tax with respect to the rent for that year alone. On the
other hand, the court pointed out that the taxpayer had always been
consistent: it had always wanted to have the rent taxed in the fiscal
year in which it was received.
47. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1311(b) (1).
48. 22 T.C. 385 (1954), acq. as to result only, 1955-2 Cure. Bull. 6.
49. Heer-Andres Inv. Co., 17 T.C. 786 (1951), nonacq., 1952-1 Cur. Bull. 5.
It should be noted that the court never even mentioned the statutory
A case that reached the right result on apparently fallacious reasoning
is that of Daniel M. Cory, 0 where the court held that, upon a
detern.nation that certain income was properly excludable from a return
for 1944, it was possible to reopen the return for 1945 when such
income was properly taxable and assess the tax. The taxpayer's position
in the prior proceeding had been that this income should be excluded
from his 1944 return. Such position was clearly inconsistent with the
erroneous exclusion of the income from the return for 1945. By ruling
in his favor, the Tax Court adopted his inconsistent position. 1 To this
extent, therefore, the statute was satisfied. But the court did not discuss
this inconsistency. What the court found inconsistent were the two
positions the taxpayer had taken for 1944-including the income on his
return as originally filed and later claiming that the income should be
In the first of the inventory cases, Gooch Milling & Elevator Co. v.
United States,' the Court of Claims took an equally confusing stand:
The Commissioner acted inconsistently. In his determination ... vith respect to
the fiscal year 1936, the Commissioner adopted a position which was inconsistent
with the position the taxpayer had maintained with respect to the erroneous inclusion
of "option wheat" in its inventories, and which determination was also inconsistent
with the basis on which the Commisioner had audited and closed the plaintiff's returns
for years prior to the fiscal years 1935 and 1936.53
Three inventory cases following Gooch present their own peculiar
In the Hackney 4 case, referred to earlier, the court spoke of the
treatment of inventories by the plaintiff-taxpayer, in its 1938 and 1939
tax returns, as "inconsistent... with that which had occurred in the
[earlier] years... ." But, as this was a case in which the adjustment
sought would involve a refund, the statute expressly required that the
inconsistent position be maintained by the Commissioner, not the
In Dubuque Packing Co. v. United States,ria the court went similarly
astray on the inconsistency issue and held that the taxpayer was not
50. 29 T.C. 903, afFd, 261 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 966 (1959).
51. 23 T.C. 775 (1955), aff'd, 230 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 US. 828 (1956).
52. 111 Ct. Cl. 576, 78 F. Supp. 94 (1948).
53. Id. at 587, 7S F. Supp. at 100.
54. H. T. Hackney v. United States, 111 Ct. Cl. 664, 73 F. Supp. 101 (1948); ,ee note
39 and accompanying text.
55. 111 CL CL at 631, 78 F. Supp. at 110.
56. 126 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Iowa 1954), aff'd, 233 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 196).
entitled to a section 3801 adjustment. "The Commissioner," it stated,
"throughout consistently computed the taxpayer's taxes based upon the
taxpayer's election [to include additional items in its LIFO inventories]
And finally, in Moultrie Cotton Mills v. United States, 8 the necessary
inconsistency was found in the fact that, for the years barred by the
statute of limitations, the Commissioner had denied refund claims
"based on the same required calculation" as that used in determining
refunds allowed for years not so barred."9
In Heer-Andres60 and D. A. MacDonald6," the Tax Court found it
unnecessary to deal with a most intricate question of inconsistency. The
requisite prior determinations62 had approved the Commissioner's
position as to the proper method of accounting for the taxpayers' incomes,
but agreed with the taxpayers that the Commissioner's application of
this method for a particular year was incorrect. In each case, the
taxpayer had offered this view as an alternative to his primary argument
that the method used had been correct. Since the alternative was argued
before the court, and the court had sustained it, the Commissioner was
thereafter able to say that the taxpayer had maintained a position
inconsistent with the erroneous reporting method used by him, and on the
basis of which his tax had been computed, for earlier years.
Suppose, however, that the taxpayer had remained silent on this
issue until the court had decided which accounting method was correct
and, only then, in connection with the Rule 50 computation, had
contested the manner of determining income. Or suppose, instead of
advancing the argument over method as an alternative, counsel had pointed
out the absurdity of the Commissioner's position by showing the
peculiar results that he reached. With this before it, might not the
court, on its own motion, have made a proper computation?
The inconsistency arguments of the parties, and the court's reference
thereto, in James Brennen,6" can only be ascribed to confusion. There,
the Commissioner, having disallowed certain deductions affecting the
basis of securities owned by the taxpayer, voluntarily recomputed the
gain realized upon their sale in a subsequent year and refunded the tax
overpayment thus found to have been made. The taxpayer filed no
57. 126 F. Supp. at 807.
58. 138 Ct. Ci. 208, 151 F. Supp. 482 (1957).
59. Id. at 214, 151 F. Supp. at 485.
60. 22 T.C. 385 (1954).
61. 17 T.C. 934 (1951), acq., 1952-1 Cum. Bull. 3.
62. Heer-Andres Inv. Co., 17 T.C. 786 (1951); Omah MacDonald, 8 CCH Tax Ct.
Mem. 212 (1949).
63. 20 T.C. 495 (1953), acq., 1954-1 Cum. Bull. 3.
claim for this refund, nor did he execute any agreement accepting the
Commissioner's finding. But he did cash the refund check and retain its
proceeds. The questioned deductions having subsequently been
sustained, 4 and the taxpayer's original computation of gain thus shown to
be correct, the Government in the instant action was trying to recover
the refund it had made. Briefs for both taxpayer and Government
discussed "the question whether the action of the petitioner in accepting
and retaining the refund.., amounted to the maintenance of an
inconsistent position ....," What they, and the court, ignored was that, under
the mitigation statute, it does not matter how the error in a barred year
arose or who committed it. The requirement is that the determination
adopt a position inconsistent with the error and not with whatever
position had been maintained with respect thereto by either of the
It will be recalled that the required inconsistent position of the
Commissioner upon which the taxpayer's victory in RoscnbcrgcrGr
depended was taken in an earlier case by way of counterclaim in an
amended answer, after the court had announced it was prepared to
give judgment for the taxpayer. It was held that the judgment in favor
of the Government on this counterclaim was a determination adopting
the inconsistent position. But the counterclaim itself was based on the
mitigation statute and, as already stated, was improperly allowed
because not preceded by a determination in the form of a judgment
that had become final. How, therefore, could that allowance be treated
as the required adoption of an inconsistent position?
Among the "circumstances of adjustment" enumerated in Code
section 1312 (the kinds of determination for one year which will, if other
requirements are satisfied, open the otherwise barred return for another
year or another taxpayer), two involve the erroneous treatment of
"an item" of gross income. Adjustment is authorized, the section
declares, if a determination:
requires the inclusion in gross income of an item which was erroneously included in
64. Decision entered on stipulation, Docket No. 14104 (T.C., Jan. 16, 19S1).
65. 20 T.C. at 500.
66. Albert W. Priest Trust, 6 T.C. 221, acq., 1946-1 Cum. Bull. 4; cf. Note, 40 Va. L.
Rev. 773, 776 (1954). As here pointed out, however, the position adopted in the
determination cannot be that of the party claiming a mitigation adjustment. The Comnfiionees
voluntary allowance of a refund could not, therefore, have served as ground for reopening
the year in which the original deductions were claimed.
67. Rosenberger v. United States, 13S F. Supp. 117 (EDl. Mo. 1955); see note 34 supra
and accompanying text.
the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year or in the gross income of
a related taxpayer . . . [or]
requires the exclusion from gross income of an item included in a return filed by
the taxpayer or with respect to which tax was paid and which was erroneously
excluded or omitted from the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year,
or from the gross income of a related taxpayer; or . . .
requires the exclusion from gross income of an item not included in a return filed
by the taxpayer and with respect to which the tax was not paid but which is includible
in the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year or in the gross income
of a related taxpayer.
As used elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code, the word item is
qualitative-is synonymous with "type." The surmise, made soon after
the enactment of section 820,68 that the usage there was similar, was
probably a correct one. But, in the mitigation statute, the usage appears
to be (and the early commentary just referred to describes it as)
somewhat more restricted than, for example, the usage of "item" in the
definition of "gross income" itself.69 For the latter purpose, all of the
salaries, all of the dividends, all of the rents received by a taxpayer in
any year are each, as an aggregate, an "item" of gross income. But, as
the word is used in section 1312, these aggregates are not the items. In
addition to its examination into types of income, the statute is interested
as well in sources and other identifying features.
It was the Gooch Milling7" case which first demonstrated the difficulties
of the item concept. On audit of the taxpayer's return for the 1935-1936
fiscal year, it was found that opening and closing inventories had been
overstated by reason of the inclusion therein of wheat to which
taxpayer did not have title. Eliminating this wheat from inventory increased
income for the year and produced a tax deficiency. The resulting
assessment was sustained by the Board of Tax Appeals 7 and, ultimately, the
Supreme Court.7 2 The taxpayer then sued in the Court of Claims to
recover a refund for the year 1934-1935 on the theory that, by making
the same sort of adjustment to inventories in the earlier year (which
was closed), the effect would be to reduce income. Holding in favor
of the taxpayer, the court summarized and answered the Government's
arguments in these words:
[Ilt is insisted . . . that the term "item" . . . has reference only to such specific
identifiable items as dividends, salaries, a profit on the sale of specific property, a loss
or bad debt.
We think... that the section should not be given such a limited interpretation.
... [I]nventories... are vital in the determination of gross income, and rwhen their
cost or value .. is changed, gross income is ...directly affected and the result and
amount by which income is affected and the amount in which it is increased or
decreased, through an increase or decrease in the operating profit or loss, is as specific
and identifiable as an item or [sic] dividends, salaries, loss or the like.73
It is believed that the court's view of an item of gross income as
anything "specific and identifiable" by which such income is "directly
affected," is not only reasonable but correct. Nonetheless, the Goocl case
has led to difficulty.
The case of H. T. Hackney Co. v. United States71 was decided on the
very same day as Gooch and looked to the latter for authority. Hackney,
too, involved erroneous overstatements of inventory, beginning in 1933
and ending with the closing inventory for fiscal 1937-1938. The error
was discovered and corrected during fiscal 1933-1939, and such
correction, the court observed, "had the effect of shifting an item of
income to 1939, that is, portions of the operating profits computed for
such prior years ...."7
We may take it that the item said to have been shifted, "operating
profits," was the court's misnomer for "gross profit" or "gross margin,"
the term accountants use to describe the intermediate balance produced
by charging the total of sales with the cost of goods sold. As such, in a
sense, it certainly is an item of income, but, it is believed, one of
insufficient particularity. It could represent, for example, the gross profit
realized in a variety of operations or with respect to a number of different
and unrelated stocks of goods. Surely a determination with respect to
the gross profit from the sale of buttons in one year could not give rise
to an adjustment in a prior closed year in the gross profit from the
sale of paper clips. Here, then, we see the first departure in words,
though not in fact, from the concept of the "specific and identifiable"
as a test of what constitutes an item.
The most recent word from the Court of Claims in this area came in
A. Fine & Sons 31fg. Co. v. United States7.0 In 1944, the taxpayer was
given a factory by a local chamber of commerce. In 1947, the factory
was sold. During the period in which taxpayer had held the property,
"it was the established policy of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
to deny.., a right to a deduction for depreciation on property" acquired
73. 111 Ct. CI.576, 5S5-S6, 78 F. Supp. 94, 99-100 (1943).
74. 111 Ct. CI. 664, 7S F. Supp. 101 (1948).
75. Id. at 679, 7S F. Supp. at 109.
76. 144 Ct. C1. 46, 163 F. Supp. 769, vacating 144 CL Cl.56, 162 F. Supp. 763 (1953).
as this had been." No depreciation was claimed and, upon sale, the
entire proceeds, unreduced by any basis, were treated as gain. After the
Supreme Court's decision in Brown Shoe Co. v. Commissioner,78 the Fine
Company filed a claim for refund for the year of sale on the ground
that its basis for the factory had been the cost thereof to the generous
chamber of commerce. Such claim was allowed in part and disallowed
in part. The Commissioner admitted that taxpayer's basis had not been
zero, but insisted that, for the purpose of computing gain, the basis to
the donor must be reduced by the depreciation allowable (but not
claimed) for the years in which the factory was held by the taxpayer
prior to sale. These years being barred by the statute of limitations, the
Court of Claims action was brought to recover the taxes which would
not have been paid had the depreciation charges been allowed as
deductions. The result was a taxpayer victory founded solidly on the position
foreshadowed in Gooch and definitely enunciated in Hackney. As a
constituent element of the cost of goods sold, the court held, the
depreciation in question directly affected a portion of gross profit. By reason
of the Commissioner's partial disallowance of the 1947 refund claim,
this profit was shifted into the year in which the factory was sold.7 0
As has been suggested by at least two commentators, this decision may
point the way to a solution of the difficult mitigation problems which are
created by basis adjustments.s0 But, when examined standing alone
and judged in terms of the item concept, the Fine case is not
satisfactory. There the depreciable property involved was a factory building
so that the depreciation deduction was a constituent element of the
cost of goods sold."' Not all depreciation, however, is of this character.
77. 144 Ct. Cl. at 57, 168 F. Supp. at 771.
78. 339 U.S. 583 (1950), holding that a taxpayer which received property from a
community as an inducement to locate or expand its operations in the area was entitled
to depreciation deductions in respect thereof because, as a gift, the property took as basis
in the donee's hands its cost to the donating community. See Int. Rev. Code of 1939,
Ch. 1, § 113(a)(8), 53 Stat. 42; O'Meara, Contributions to Capital by Non-shareholders,
3 Tax L. Rev. 568 (1948).
79. With respect to a second plant acquired in the same manner by the Fine Company
but not sold, the court found no ground for reopening the closed years to allow depreciation
deductions because the Government, having allowed depreciation thereon for all years
open at the time of the Brown Shoe decision, had taken no position inconsistent with the
80. Sarner, Adopting an Inconsistent Position May, Though Rarely, Open a Closed
Tax Year, 11 J. Taxation 35, 38 (1959); Note, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1536, 1545 (1959).
81. Prior to 1953, the Service took the position that "in determining the gross income
subtractions should not be made for depreciation, depletion, selling expenses, or losses,
or for items not ordinarily used in computing the cost of goods sold." Treas. Reg. 111,
§ 29.22(a)-5 (1943). The word "depreciation" was retroactively deleted from this section
and the non-deductibility of depletion was limited to percentage and discovery types by
The write-off of a bookkeeping machine, for example, or of a salesman's
automobile, would be a charge to the general category of selling and
administrative expense: thoroughly deductible, but not a part of the
computation of the item of income known as gross profit. Surely our
courts cannot stop here. And yet, if the term "item" is to have the
restricted, qualitative meaning intended for it by the draftsmen of
section 820 of the 1938 Act, the extension made by the Fine decision is
probably as far as we can go. It is not necessary that one be an advocate
of strict construction to appreciate the dangers of unlimited
generalization of the Fine principle.
Such an extension was urged in the recent case of United States v.
Rushlight.C The taxpayer was a stockholder in a corporation known
as A. G. Rushlight & Co. During the years 1942 through 1945, the
corporation purchased certain farm machinery for his account and
charged the cost to its own expense. A 1953 Tax Court decision sustained
the Commissioner's disallowance of deductions claimed by the
corporation for this cost and his inclusion of the amounts thereof in Mr.
Rushlight's income as dividends. 3 Having paid the resulting tax deficiency,
Rushlight claimed refunds for each of the years involved on the theory
that, since the cost of the farm machinery had been added to his
income, he was entitled to deductions for depreciation of such cost.
The refunds were denied because the statute of limitations had run.
Rushlight sued and won in the district court, but the decision was
reversed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit."' Before the latter, one of the
arguments made was the applicability, on the strength of Gooch,
Hackney, and Fine, of 1939 Code section 3801(b)(1) which provided for
adjustment when a determination required the inclusion in gross income
of an item erroneously included in gross income for some other taxable
year. Answering the Government, the Brief for Appellee declared:
On page 22, the government says that a depreciation deduction is not an "item"
which is a part of gross income. For this proposition three Tax Court cases are cited.
None of these cases involve depreciation. However, there is a Section 3S01 case
T.D. 602S, 1953-2 Cum. Bull. 100. Rev. Rul. 141, 1953-2 Cur. Bull. 101, ePxplained this
change as merely for the purpose of conforming the gross income regulations to those
dealing with inventory valuation. "The amendment merely permits the subtraction of
depredation and cost depletion in determining gross income in accordance ith accepted
accounting practice in the particular trade or business and does not require such
subtraction. Any change by a taxpayer from the method consistently used in the past with res-pct
to the treatment of such items in determining gross income constitutes a change in
accounting method which requires the consent of the Commissioner . . . ." Rev. RuL 141,
1953-2 Cur. Bull. at 102.
S2. 291 F.2d 03 (9th Cir. 1961), reversing 60-1 US. Tax Cas. U9309 (D. Ore. 1960).
83. Decision entered on stipulation, Docket Nos. 20022 & 20023 (T.C., Aug. 6, 1953).
84. Note 82 supra.
court's determination with respect to 1942 required the "exclusion from
gross income of an item" which, as a result of taxpayer's erroneous use
of the cash basis for the earlier years, had also been excluded from the
income of those years. This view the Tax Court rejected, saying:
Section 3801 ... provides for an adjustment as to "an item" or "items" with respect
to which a determination has been made .... "The item" with respect to which a
determination was made . .. was an adjustment of the 1942 opening figures . . .
which consisted of opening inventory .. . accounts receivable . . . [and] accounts
payable .... In his determination of deficiencies in this proceeding the respondent
does not attempt to trace back into the prior years the adjustment affected by our
decision as to the year 1942. Instead, he has determined increases in income for
the years 1938-1940 on the basis of the records.., for each of those years and has
computed a deficiency based on such increases. He has not determined "the increase
• . . in the tax . . . which results solely from" the adjustment to 1942 opening
figures.... For all that we know, the 1942 adjustment may have resulted entirely
from transactions that occurred in the year 1941. . . . If so, then no part of the
accruable items or inventory can properly be carried back to prior years....
Section 3801 does not purport to permit adjustments for prior years for items that
are merely similar to those with respect to which a determination has been made for
The MacDonald opinion establishes as clearly and precisely as
possible that the Tax Court has not rejected the Gooch principle that a
change in gross income resulting from changes which directly affect
its computation is an "item" for the purpose of the mitigation statute.
On the contrary, when it refused to sustain the Government's position,
all the court was saying was that there had been a failure of proof: it
had not been demonstrated that the years which the Government sought
to reopen were, in fact, the years in which the claimed errors had
occurred. Such a demonstration seems clearly required by the wording of
The facts in Dubuque Packingt0 and Moultrie Cotton Mi!ls 91 are
strikingly similar; the decisions, the first refusing, and the second
granting the mitigation adjustment, are equally deplorable for both fail
to recognize the nature and effect of inventory changes. In both
instances, the taxpayers, who had elected to value certain of their
inventories under the LIFO method for 1941 and subsequent years, made
new elections in accordance with T. D. 540712 to change the class of
inventories to which LIFO would apply. This made necessary a
recomputation of income for all the LIFO years and resulted in each case in
the assessment of a deficiency for the latest of such years. For the
FORDIIAM LAW REVIEW
earlier years, the effect of the adjustment was to reduce income, but
the indicated refunds could not be allowed because the years were
barred by the statute of limitations. Both taxpayers sued and both of the
courts before which they appeared accepted the proposition that items
of income were involved.
What neither court attempted was a reconstruction of the gross
income computations for the several years involved to determine whether,
and to what extent, income taxed under the inventory valuation method
previously in use was, under LIFO as revised, being taxed in some other
year. LIFO is merely an assumption as to which particular items remain
in inventory at the end of the year. Such an assumption necessarily
involves also an assumption as to which items have been sold. In an era
of rising prices it means that the lowest priced-that is, the earliest
acquired-items remain, and the highest priced or most recently acquired
items have been sold. The alternatives to LIFO, i.e., valuation at cost
or market, or on the FIFO basis, would have produced a diametrically
opposite result, and it is the shift from one of these methods to LIFO
that generally effects a lowering of income by increasing the cost of
goods sold. Because each inventory method does involve an assumption
as to the particular goods sold during each taxable year, it seems
perfectly possible to determine, upon a change in method, both the
year in which such goods were originally deemed sold and the year in
which, under the new method, they are deemed sold."3
This is the sort of determination which the court in MacDonald
insisted was necessary and which the courts that heard Dubuque and
Moultrie failed to make. It would seem to be a sine qua non in inventory
and similar cases. In Dubuque its use might also have forestalled the
court's infelicitous statement that
prior to the redeterminations . . . the inventories for the years 1941, 1942 and 1943
did not contain or include any "erroneous" item of gross income. The inventory
valuations were then proper and correct. . . . The election of the taxpayer . . .
permitted the Commissioner to adjust the inventory values for those years .... When
the inventory valuations were adjusted . . . the closing inventory for 1941 was in
accord with the opening inventory for 1942 and the closing inventory for 1942 was
in accord with the opening inventory for 1943.94
93. This is not to suggest that there is never any difficulty in identifying the Income
shifted by an inventory adjustment. In one case, a manufacturer which owned its sources
of raw material was required by the Service to record such raw material at an earlier
point in time than that at which it had previously been recorded. This meant the addition
of a number of units bearing a lower cost (because less had been done to them) and a
consequent reduction in total inventory. Over the years involved, the net effect of this
was to raise income in some years and reduce it in others. That income had been shifted
was obvious. But whether increases had come from one year or another was almost
94. 126 F. Supp. at 806-07.
This obviously was not the question. The question was whether, through
adjustments of inventories for both open and closed years, the
Commissioner had put the taxpayer in the position of being deemed to have
sold-that is, included the income from-items in an open year which,
under the previous method, he was deemed to have sold and included
in one of the years now closed.
In Revenue Rzding 58-327," the Service, apparently thinking it was
doing no more than acquiescing in the item formulation of Gooch and
Dubuque, announced that, for the purposes of sections 1311 through
1315 of the 1954 Code, "inventories constitute items of gross income."23
This, of course, goes well beyond the range of anything said in Gooch
but is implicit, perhaps, in Dubuque. It gives neither the taxpayer nor
the courts any guide as to the proper approach to these problems.
Some of the more recent decisions suggest that the Tax Court is
forgetting what it learned in MacDonald.A case in point is Estate of A.
W. SoRelle.1 In an earlier 1954 decision,S in respect of the taxable years
1946 and 1947, it was held that the taxpayer's inventories had been
valued incorrectly. Revaluation produced an increase of $27,000 in the
opening inventory for 1946 and a concomitant reduction in income for
such year. The instant case arose as a result of the Commissioner's
attempt, under 1939 Code section 3801, to add this $27,000 and certain
other amounts to taxpayer's income for 1945. The Commissioner was
successful on the inventory point and the $27,000 was added to the
1945 ending inventory (thus decreasing cost of goods sold and
increasing income for that year) without, as the taxpayer had urged, a
corresponding adjustment to the opening inventory. Said the court:
The estate attacks the adjustment ...upon the ground that correction of the
dosing inventory for 1945 is not permissible without at the same time revaluing the
opening inventory for 1945. We disagree. The application of the statutory provisions
does not contemplate a reopening of the tax liability for the barred year except to
the extent that it is affected by the iten that is being shifted from one year to
This holding is objectionable, not because it arrives at the wrong
result (for, on the facts stated, the result may be correct), but because
its approach to the problem is fallacious. Inventory is not, and can never
95. 195S-1 Cure. Bull. 316.
96. 195S-1 Cum. Bull. at 317.
97. 31 T.C. 272 (1958), acq., 1959-1 Cum. Bull. S.
98. ELsie SoRelle, 22 T.C. 459 (1954).
99. 31 T.C. at 276. An alternate ground for decision was that the inventory balance
which taxpayer sought to adjust was non-existent, in which case, of courze, even if
taxpayer won on the law he could gain no benefit. But see Heer-Andres Inv. Co., 17 T.C.
7S6 (1951), nonacq., 1952-1 Cum. Bull. S.
be, an item of income. It is merely a factor that goes into the
computation of such an item. And whether, in order to make the adjustment
required by the mitigation statute, one must correct one inventory balance
or half a dozen depends upon an analysis of the error to determine its
Although Estate of Sarah Louise Gill' was not an inventory case,
its central problem was analogous to that presented by such cases, For
a considerable period of time, taxpayer had erroneously reported the
income of his business (a sole proprietorship) on the basis of a fiscal,
rather than the calendar year. On being advised that this method was
incorrect, he recomputed his 1949 income by adding thereto a fraction
(two-thirds) of the business income on his 1950 return, and
subtracting the identical fraction of the business income reported on his 1949
return, the latter now being assumed to have been earned in 1948. The
result of this computation was to decrease 1949 income and to make
the taxpayer eligible for a refund for which he thereafter successfully
sued.' To make good its loss, the Government promptly assessed a
deficiency for 1948 based on the addition to that year's income of the
two-thirds of 1948-1949 business income removed from income for 1949.
The deficiency was collectable, however, only if the mitigation statute
was applicable, since 1948 was a barred year. It is believed that the
Tax Court was on solid ground in deciding the case in the Government's
favor, holding that the mitigation statute did apply and that the
amount by which 1949 income had been reduced should be shifted back
into 1948. But it is impossible to accept the further holding that
mitigation would not permit a correct computation of 1948 income by
removing therefrom the portion of 1947-1948 business profit which under
taxpayer's erroneous accounting method had been incorrectly included.
As in the inventory cases, the exclusion effected by the determination
was of an item, not an amount, and the item was the correct business
profit for the year. Accordingly, it was error here, as in SoRelle, to
refuse to take into account all elements of the equation.
This view is in no sense contrary to the position taken by the Tax
Court and the Third Circuit in First Nat'l Bank of Philadelphia0.'"
There, it will be recalled, the bank over a long period of time accrued
and deducted the annual capital stock levy paid to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania in the year before the year in which it was paid. In
G. C. M. 21329,103 the Service announced that, because this tax had been
100. 35 T.C. 1208 (1961).
101. Gill v. United States, 258 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1958), reversing 57-2 U.S. Tax Cas.
II10,054 (NJ).Ala. 1957).
102. 18 T.C. 899 (1952), aff'd, 205 F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1953).
103. 1939-2 Cum. Bull. 179.
held to be imposed on the banks' shareholders rather than the banks
themselves, it would be deductible by the banks only in the year of
payment, irrespective of the method of accounting employed. Upon
audit of this taxpayer's 1944 and 1945 returns, it was found that the
rule of the G. C. M. had not been followed. Therefore, deductions
claimed for the tax accruals in each of the years were disallowed and
deductions for the actual payments were substituted. Taxpayer
thereafter filed a refund claim in respect of the year 1943, based on a
deduction of the prior year's tax. This claim having been allowed, the
Government then assessed a deficiency for the closed year, 1942, on the theory
that the allowance of the 1943 deduction at taxpayer's behest
permitted a correction under 1939 Code section 3801 of the erroneous
deduction for 1942. Taxpayer's defense rested in part on the
contention that if one error could be corrected, all should be, and that the
court should accompany its disallowance of the 1942 accrual with an
allowance of the 1942 payment and at the same time go back
through time concurrently disallowing accruals and allowing payments
as deductions. To the court this was absurd. Citing the express
instructions of section 3801(d),1°1 it pointed out that its work was limited to
the particular error which had served to open the closed year. There
was no question of the identity of the item to be considered. A specific
tax payment had been deducted in the wrong year, taxpayer had actively
and successfully sought a deduction for the same payment for the right
year, and the determination in its favor permitted an opening of the
closed year in which the error had occurred. Once the closed year error
had been corrected, the mitigation statute had run its course.
The item problem arises in another context. The draftsmen of the
mitigation statute made it clear at the outset that each correction
provided for was to be "made only with respect to the item involved in the
determination,""' and that the bar of the statute of limitations would
not be lifted as to "any other item, even though such other item
also had been erroneously treated in the same year."' 00
This was the ground for the Government's opposition to the claim
for refund in Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. v. United States.0 7 The
taxpayer on its 1944 return deducted an ordinary loss of $168,000. This
was disallowed on audit and the resulting deficiency was paid. The
taxpayer then brought suit for refund, but the court held against it. The
104. Int. Rev. Code of 1939, d. 3S, § 3SO1(d), 63 Stat 473
(nor, InL Rev. Code of
1954, § 1314)
105. S. Rep. No. 1567, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 52 (1933). (Emphasis added.)
107. 265 F.2d 293 (7th Cir. 1959), affirming 58-2 U.S. Tax Cas. fi 9740 (S.D. I. 1953).
court agreed that the taxpayer had sustained a loss, but it was a capital,
not an ordinary, loss. This was of no benefit to the taxpayer because in
1944 it had realized no capital gains against which the loss could be
offset."°8 There had, however, been substantial long term gains in 1945
and, if the 1944 loss could be carried over, the taxpayer would benefit
after all. The difficulty was that such a carryover was barred by
limitations. The present action, therefore, was an attempt to bring the
carryover under the mitigation umbrella.
The Government urged that there had been no determination
disallowing "a deduction or credit which should have been allowed to, but
was not allowed to, the taxpayer for another taxable year."' 0' On the
contrary, the determination had allowed a loss (of the long term capital
sort); the loss which had been disallowed was an ordinary one, a
creature quite unidentifiable in a qualitative sense with the capital loss
carryover here asserted.
The court brushed this argument aside. "[T]here is no requirement
in § 1312(4)," it said, "that they [the deductions] be the same type." 0°
It is difficult, if not impossible, not to find such a requirement in the
section referred to. Even if it be absent, however, how can we avoid the
prescription for adjustment which directs that we ascertain "the
increase or decrease in tax previously determined which results solely
from the correct treatment of the item which was the subject of the
error ... ?,,'
An even more curious mixture of related but not identical "items"
was involved in The Budd Co."' There the taxpayer suffered an
operating loss in 1946 of nearly $11,000,000. This was carried back first to
1944 where it wiped out that year's entire income and resulted in a
refund (made in 1947) of more than $8,000,000 in excess profits tax. There
having been a small loss in 1945, the next year against which the 1946
loss could be applied was 1947. In computing the amount available for
carryover, taxpayer considered as having been used against 1944
income only the amount of such income remaining after deduction of the
excess profits tax accrued for that year, even though such tax had, by
reason of the carryback, been subsequently refunded. When taxpayer
filed its claim for refund for 1947, the Commissioner was faced with the
dilemma of an apparent duplication of deductions on the one hand and,
on the other, the approval of the method of computation by the Supreme
Court in Lewyt Corp. v. Commissioner."3 His denial of the refund,
therefore, was not on the ground of an improper computation, but rather that
1947 income should include the amount of the refund of 1944 tax.
Taxpayer's subsequent suit for refund established that the refund was not
income."1 As a result the Commissioner sought a deficiency for 1944
on the theory that, to the extent the 1946 loss had been used as a
carryover to 1947, it had erroneously been availed of as a deduction (by way
of carryback) in 1944. For the Tax Court, the connection was too
tenuous, and, said Judge Murdock:
The fact that the petitioner received this benefit in 1947 is not justification for
going back to 1944 and making compensating changes just to prevent a double benefit,
particularly when such compensating changes are not authorized by, but are contrary
to, the provisions of section 122 in respect to how the 1946 net loss shall be applied
to 1944 net income.115
How could the Government have won this case? That there had been
an error is clear. That the taxpayer, in asserting its 1947 refund claim,
maintained a position wholly inconsistent with the error is equally
apparent. It is also true that this position was adopted when the
courts allowed the 1947 claim. The only question, then, was whether
there was any circumstance of adjustment described in the mitigation
sections which would open the year of error and permit its correction.
To attack the method of computing carrybacks prescribed in the
regulations and endorsed by court decisions was hardly the way, although a
different forum-i.e., a district court sitting in a suit to recover an
erroneous refund under 1954 Code section 7405-might have proved
more hospitable to the idea. Perhaps the outrage is inherent in the rule
of the Lewyt case. But is it not possible to say here that the mitigation
statute makes its own rules; that by maintaining the position it took
for 1947, the taxpayer was abandoning that taken for the earlier year,
and was, in effect, withdrawing its 1944 refund claim? In such a posture,
the Government would not be asking the court, in exchange for an
113. 349 U.S. 237 (1955).
114. Budd Co. v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 792 (El). Pa.), aft'd, 252 F.2d 456 (3d
115. 33 T.C. 313, 317 (1960).
exclusion from income, to disallow a deduction and thus distort the
precision of the statute.
The novel and, it is believed, mistaken application of the item
concept in John Hamilton Perkins"' is probably traceable to the same
confusion between identity of amounts and identity of items that was
present in Gill and Budd.
In 1949, at a time when he was a stockholder and one of the principal
officers of a corporation, Perkins withdrew nearly $40,000 from the
corporate treasury and gave his promissory note in exchange. Two years
later, the corporation was dissolved and Perkins, who by this time had
become the sole stockholder, received all of the assets, including his
own $40,000 note, as a liquidating distribution.
The 1949 withdrawal was not reflected in any way on Perkins' federal
income tax return for that year. The receipt of the note upon liquidation
of the corporation in 1951 was included in the computation of the amount
of the liquidating dividend but did not increase the gain reported on the
1951 return because, as a result of an accountant's error, the face amount
of the note was also included in the computation of the taxpayer's basis
for his stock in the corporation." 7
In 1954, the Commissioner assessed a deficiency against taxpayer
for 1949 on the ground that the withdrawal from the corporation in
that year had constituted a dividend rather than a loan. The case went
to the Tax Court which, in 1957, held that the transaction had in fact
been a loan and that taxpayer had realized no income therefrom. 118
The Commissioner then undertook to reopen the question of
taxpayer's liability in respect of the year 1951, which year, unless the
mitigation statute applied, was barred by limitations. Here the
Commissioner was successful. In the words of the court:
The facts which we have hereinbefore found, disclose a double exclusion by
petitioner from his gross income of an item of $39,367.42. This item represents an amount
which petitioner withdrew from Realty Corporation in 1949, when he was one of
the principal stockholders and officers thereof, and also when said corporation had
substantial earnings and surplus. He did not include said item as a taxable dividend
in his 1949 gross income, on the ground that the same was a bona fide loan, evidenced
by his promissory note for the same amount which the corporation thereafter carried
in its assets until the time of its dissolution in 1951. Also petitioner did not include
116. 36 T.C. 313 (1961).
117. These appear to be the facts upon which the court based its decision. Actually,
an audit of taxpayer's 1951 return bad resulted in the substitution for the erroneously
calculated basis of a new cost for his stock which did not include the face amount of the
note. There was, therefore, no ground for the court's finding "that no portion of the
amount of said promissory note was included either in the amount of the reported gain
from such liquidation, or elsewhere in petitioner's 1951 reported income." 36 T.C. at 319.
118. John Hamilton Perkins, 16 CCH Tax Ct. Mem. 548 (1957).
any portion of the amount of said unpaid promissory note in his gross income for
the year 1951, when said promissory note was distributed to him as sole stockholder
of said corporation, upon final liquidation of the corporation in the latter year....
The particular paragraph of section 1312 which is here pertinent, is paragraph (3) (B)
thereof. This paragraph applies, under its own terms, if the "determination" (here,
this Court's decision in the interrelated case involving the year 1949) requires the
exclusion from gross income (here, the gross income for 1949) of an item not included
in a return filed by the taxpayer and in respect of which the tax was not paid; but
which is includible in the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year
in the gross income for 1951)
The fallacy of this decision becomes evident when we reread the
governing law. The activating determination required in this instance
was "the exclusion from gross income of an item." - "Item," as here
used, seems dearly to mean an "item of income" and not a mere receipt
which may or may not be income. This is the way in which the term is
understood by the regulations,' 1 the Tax Court itself,2" and the
commentators.1 So interpreted, section 1312 provides no ground for the
Perkins decision. The earlier holding that taxpayer's 1949 receipt was
not income could not possibly give the Government the right to make
an untimely assessment of tax for 1951.
But even if "item" is broad enough to include non-income receipts,
the Perkins case presents a problem, for there is no qualitative similarity
between a loan and a liquidating distribution and none but an accidental
connection between the two events.
The expansion of the item concept to include the effect of inventory
revaluations and the like on the computation of income and expense has
illuminated a possible conflict between Code sections. If the errors
supposed to be corrected under sections 1311 through 1315 are the
product of a change in accounting method, will the correction be made
by adjustment under section 1314 or under section 481? If the latter
section governs, both taxpayers and Commissioner will be much more
limited than they would be under the mitigation statute. For example,
any increase in tax arising as a result of the required transitional
adjustments is limited under section 481 by an averaging device. 21
Moreover, to the extent that a transitional adjustment corrects errors in
119. 36 T.C. at 322-23.
120. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1312(3) (B).
121. Treas. Reg.§ 1.1311(a)-1(b) (1956).
122. E.g., Estate of Sara Louise Gill, 35 T.C. 1203, 1216 (1961).
123. E.g., maguire, Surrey & Traynor, Section 820 of the Revenue Act 1935, 43 Yale
L.J. 719, 752 (1939).
124. int. Rev. Code of 1954 § 481(b); see S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong, 2d Sess. 6S
years before 1954, no change in tax is permitted if the change in
accounting method was initiated by the Commissioner. 2 '
One may argue plausibly on the side of either section. If the purpose
of mitigation is to serve in all cases in which the bar of limitations is
lifted, then the adjustment rules of section 1314 are surely preemptory.
On the other hand, it has been said that application of section 481 is
preferable in the case of accounting adjustments because this is the
more specific of the two provisions.', The Internal Revenue Service has
apparently chosen this second view,'2 7 although its long expected official
ruling on the question remains in enigmatic limbo.
Congressional intent in enacting section 481 is not readily apparent.
The possibility of conflict was nowhere considered. Nevertheless, the
stated purpose of confining section 481 adjustments, in the case of
involuntary changes in accounting method, to 1954 and subsequent years
suggests that where mitigation is applicable, another rule would obtain.
Prior to 1954, the committee reports point out, the courts had refused to
permit adjustments "where the Commissioner forces a taxpayer to change
his method of accounting."' 28 It was to prevent "results . . . [which]
would be harsher on taxpayers in most instances of involuntary
change . . ." than were being allowed by the courts that the limitation
was imposed. 2 ' This situation did not occur under the mitigation
section where adjustments back to 1931 had been expressly authorized.
Moreover, it is the taxpayer and not the Government who would suffer
if the pre-1954 period were barred in all events. Under such a rule, the
Commissioner would always, in the area of accounting changes, be free
to take positions inconsistent with those taken before 1954, knowing
that tax overpayments for the earlier years would remain with the
On balance, it would seem, to the extent that changes in accounting
method produce increases or decreases of income for barred years of
the sort described in Code section 1312, that adjustments for such years
should be made under the mitigation statute. Only here do we find a
comprehensive system for, and a reasonable limitation upon, the
correction of error.
25. Int. Rev. Code of 1954
, § 481(a) (2).
126. Fletcher, Section 481: Changes in Accounting Method, N.Y.U. 18th Inst. on Fed.
Tax 161, 174 (1960).
127. Graves, What Constitutes a Change in Accounting-Practice: The Service's Changing
Concept, N.Y.U. 16th Inst. on Fed. Tax, 553, 555 (1958).
128. S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 307 (1954).
129. Id. at 65.
ERons AFECTiNG BASIS
It is a reasonable inference from the pattern of the decisions that,
unless the courts ignore the statutory language, many, if not most, of the
errors involving basis will go uncorrected. This is so because, both in
its original and its present form, the basis provision of the mitigation
statute contains two substantial obstacles to its frequent application.
The first such obstacle is that the activating determination must
determine basis, and this does not mean a determination as to some item of
income or a deduction which affects basis. Moreover, the basis
determination must be with respect to the same property as to which the
barred year error is alleged. These are the principles underlying the
strict constructionist cases of American Foundation Co.,"-" Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. United States,'3' James Brenncn,'3 2 and
Sherover v. United States. 33 In the first of these there had been a
determination that no gain had been realized upon the receipt of
securities in a reorganization exchange. The corollary of such a holding was
that the securities received must have had the same basis as those for
which they had been exchanged and that taxpayer had been in error
when, in computing its gain on their sale, it had used as basis the
higher fair market value at time of receipt. Nevertheless, the case holds
that the Commissioner could not use the mitigation section to reopen
the closed years in which sales had occurred and assess additional taxes
on the increased gains. Underlying Brennen and Sherover were
determinations as to the deductibility of amounts which, if deductible, would
necessarily be applied in reduction of the basis of specific property and
thus increase the amount of gain taxable upon the sale of such property.
And the courts held in both cases that determinations as to the propriety
of deductions, however much such deductions might affect basis, were
not determinations of basis which would make the mitigation section
operative. Finally, in the Central Hanover case it was held that a
correction in the basis of part of a block of stock which had been sold in
one year was no ground for reopening another year in which more of the
stock had been sold to correct the basis used in that year, even though
it was clear that the first correction implied the second.
Opposed to the foregoing are Rosenberger v. United States"4 and the
lower court decision in Rushlight v. United States.' In Rosenberger it
was held that a determination that certain receipts were taxable
divi130. 2 T.C. 502, nonacq, 1943 Cum. Bull. 26.
131. 163 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1947).
132. 20 T.C. 495 (1953), acq., 1954-1 Cum. Bull. 3.
133. 137 F. Supp. 77S (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 239 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1996).
134. 13S F. Supp. 117 (ED). Mo. 1955), aff'd, 235 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1936).
135. 60-1 U.S. Tax Cas. f 9309 (D. Ore. 1960).
dends, and not payments in liquidation of indebtedness, permitted
application of the mitigation statute to recover the tax paid on the
assumption that basis had been reduced by such receipts. Rushlight
granted refunds based on the allowance of depreciation deductions in
barred years with respect to: (a) equipment originally bought by a
corporation in which the taxpayer was a stockholder and which the
determination relied upon had held was actually purchased for his
account so that its cost constituted a dividend; and, (b) equipment with
respect to which the determination disallowed an abandonment loss.
It is impossible to reconcile these cases. Either the statute means
exactly what it says and the determination relied upon must arise out of
a controversy over basis, or it means that adjustment will be permitted
whenever basis has been affected by a determination. In this connection,
Judge Turner's dissent in Brennen may suggest a compromise solution.
He would have allowed the Government's claim in this instance because
1939 Code section 113(b) (1) (H) 186 expressly provided for reductions
in basis on account of deductions of the sort which taxpayer had
previously been allowed. It follows, therefore, that the court's previous
decision allowing such deductions "was by statutory fiat a determination
of the taxpayer's basis" for the property in question." 7 It might be
argued that if a determination is as to some item of income, deduction,
or the like, which under the Code's basis provisions is expressly required
to be added to or applied in reduction of basis, then the determination
will be deemed to have determined basis. It has been suggested, indeed,
that in 1954 Congress thought it had amended the law to make
adjustments certain in these circumstances. 18 Such a reading of the
committee reports seems dubious. It is true that the non-technical discussions
contained therein state that under the amended mitigation sections
adjustment will be available, in cases involving the determination of the basis of
.pproospiteiortny,wiwthherreespeeicthtetro tthhee etxapxepnasyienrg oofr ittheemsCwohmicmhisasrieonperropaesrsluymcehsaragneabinlecotnosisctaepni-t
tal account, or the capitalizing of items which should have been expensed.' 8 9
However, an almost identical statement is made in the so-called
"Detailed Discussion of the Technical Provisions of the Bill" and this is
followed by two examples which indicate the legislators' awareness that
the activating determination must still be one of basis.' 40
136. int. Rev. Act of 1939, § 113(b)(1)(H), added by ch. 619, 56 Stat. 824 (1942)
(now Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1016(a)(5)).
137. 20 T.C. at 502 (Turner, 3., dissenting).
138. Note, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1536, 1548 (1959).
139. H.R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 86 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d
Sess. 117 (1954).
140. H.R. Rep. No. 1337, supra note 139, at A292; S. Rep. No. 1622, supra note 139,
The Ninth Circuit's reversal in United States v. ,Rushlig4ht'assumed
that the precedent determinations had been determinations of basis and
that their only disability lay in not determining such basis for gain or
loss, a requirement of prior law which was eliminated in 1954. The
court suggests, therefore, that under the present mitigation statute the
taxpayer would have won his refund. This opinion seems dearly wrong.
The second stumbling block in the basis provision is its requirement
that the error for which correction is sought be one "in respect of" a
transaction on which the determined basis "depends"" or, alternatively
(since 1954), a transaction "which was erroneously treated as affecting"
the determined basis."' In other words, as the regulations expressly
declare, the error complained of must have occurred prior to the event
which is the subject of the determination. 4 4 None of the cases discussed
in this section could have been decided in favor of mitigation if this
rule had been applied. Yet, only in Rosenbcrger and Rushlight did the
courts take cognizance of the requirement. Their treatment of it was
hardly reassuring. In the latter case, it was assumed that Congress had
"corrected their mistake in 1954."' In Roscnbergcr the court observed:
When the Government concedes that our former judgment did determine basis "in
respect of the 1946 distribution" and consequent erroneous tax return by plaintiff,
and that it was in the same action and on the foundation of the same finding, and
under Section 3801, that it recovered the taxes lawfully due it on its counterclaim,
we cannot agree that nor in this action the finding on the complaint in the former
action should be ignored. And it must be to sustain defendant's position.140
The spectre of a third possible preventive to its application hovers over
the basis provision. It has been suggested that, even if the other
conditions are met, even if the determination established basis and such basis
depended on something erroneously treated in the barred year, if the
"something" were a failure to claim allowable depreciation the
taxpayer might still be outside the ambit of the statute.117 This is because
"depreciation would seem to constitute a 'transaction affecting basis'
only in an economic or accounting sense; [not] in a physical sense .... "'s
The objection seems unrealistic. If the transaction requirement does
141. 291 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1961).
142. int. Rev. Code of 1939, ch. 38, § 3S01(b) (5), 53 Stat. 472 (now Int. Rev. Code of
1954, § 1312(6)).
143. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1312(7).
144. Treas. Reg. § 1.1312-6(a) (1956).
145. 291 F.2d at 518.
146. 13S F. Supp. at 120.
147. Burford, Basis of Property after Erroneous Treatment of a Prior Tranaction, 12
Tax L. Rev. 365, 377 (1957).
148. Id. at 373.
mean that there must be some physical act, can we not look to the
physical failure to do whatever is necessary to claim the deduction?
That such a point could be raised, however, demonstrates how very
much we expect of detailed enactments like the mitigation statute. As
such, it serves as an argument in favor of a broad drafting technique in
which so much of the law is left unwritten that no one can ever contend
that what the legislature did not say it did not intend.
The decisions of the Court of Claims in Moultrie Cotton Mills 4 ' and
M. Fine & Sons Mfg. Co., 50 as well as in the earlier Gooch"5" and
Hackney 152 cases, did not purport to be constructions of the basis adjustment
provision, although the three inventory cases have been described as "in a
sense ... determination[s] of basis,"'1 3 and it has even been suggested
the Gooch case, although correct in granting relief, erred in basing its result on the
income sections rather than on the basis provisions in view of the analogous functions
sveernvteodr,y inandcalacudlaettienrgmignraotsisonincoofmbea,sibsyfaorddeeteprrmeciinaabtlieonproofpecrotsyts.15o4f goods sold for
inOn the other hand, it has also been said that in cases of this sort counsel
might argue that the basis provisions were meant to apply only where
the activating determination determined basis, and that in all other
instances decision should be reached under the income provisions.6 4
The preferable view would seem to be that the basis provision as it
stands is wholly inadequate; that it cries for amendment; and, that until
amendment comes, we are likely to see some hard cases decided in harsh
ways and others in total disregard of the statute.
Four of the seven types of errors in barred years which it is the
purpose of sections 1311 through 1315 to correct may have been committed
either by the taxpayer in respect of whom the activating determination
is made or by a "related taxpayer."' 0 This is in conformity with the
principle expressed when the mitigation statute was first proposed that
"corrective adjustments should produce the effect of attributing income
or deductions to the right year and the right taxpayer." " 7 In this, as in
the statute as a whole, Congress attempted to leave nothing to chance.
The 1954 Code, section 1313(c), defines the term "related taxpayer" as
a taxpayer who, with the taxpayer with respect to whom a determination is made,
stood, in the taxable year with respect to which the erroneous inclusion, esclusion,
omission, allowance, or disallowance was made, in one of the following relationship3:
(1) husband and wife,
(2) grantor and fiduciary,
(3) grantor and beneficiary,
(4) fiduciary and beneficiary, legatee, or heir,
(5)decedent and decedent's estate,
(6) partner, or
(7) member of an affiliated group of corporations (as defined in section 1504).
Construing this definition most literally, the Internal Revenue Service
has long been of the opinion that, if one of the specified relationships
existed at any time during the year of error, "it is not essential
that the error involve a transaction made possible only by reason of the
existence of the relationship. ''las The present regulations give, as an
example, an assignment of rents between two taxpayers who happen to
be partners. A determination affecting one of these two may, it is stated,
permit an adjustment with respect to the taxes of the other even though
"the assignment had nothing to do with the business of the
The committee reports on the 1938 Act lead one to doubt the
soundness of this administrative interpretation. The related taxpayer definition,
it is there declared, "covers those situations in which, for reasons
apparent from the nature of the relationship, the problems dealt with by
this section are likely to arise."o
Nor does it appear that the Tax Court accepts the Service's view. In
the case of Sam D. Hechzt,' the taxpayer's interest in certain businesses
sixth circumstances of adjustment, but in these the error can have beea made only by the
related taxpayer who, by the terms of the description, must stand in a particular
relationship to the taxpayer. The basis adjustment rules of § 1312(7) limit the persons who can
avail themselves of the statute to the taxpayer himself and those from whom he derived
157. S. Rep. No. 1567, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 50 (1933).
15S. Treas. Reg. § 1.1313(c)-1 (1956); accord, Treas. Reg. 113, § 39.301(a)(3)-1
(1953); Treas. Reg. 111, § 29.3801(a)(3)-i (1943).
159. Treas. Reg. § 1.1313(c)-1 (1956).
160. S. Rep. No. 1567, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 50-S1 (1933); cf. H.R. Rep. 2330, 75th
Cong., 3d Sess. 38 (1938).
161. 16 T.C. 9S1 (1951).
had been concealed, ostensibly because his employer would not have
approved of his being engaged in ventures of this nature. His income
and losses therefrom for the years in question were therefore reported,
not on his own tax returns, but rather on those of three other persons
who, of course, were reimbursed by him for the increased tax payments
they were required to make. Two of these persons were partners with
Mr. Hecht in the ventures in question. In the instant proceeding, which
arose from the Commissioner's assessment against Mr. Hecht of taxes
on his entire income for 1943, 1944, and 1945 (including that reported
on these other persons' returns), the taxpayer claimed he was entitled,
under section 3801, to offset against the asserted deficiencies the taxes
paid on account of the other returns. This the court denied, saying that
"in so far as those persons acted as dummies for Hecht, they were not
his partners."'' "
Unhappily, Judge Murdock's opinion in the Hecht case makes no
reference to the position taken in the regulations. Moreover, it goes on
to observe that "section 3801 was never intended to cover a situation
where, in order to conceal the truth, one person reports income which
he and the other party know belongs to the other party .... W03, From
this, the Treasury, it is understood, deduces not a rejection of its
administrative stand, but rather a much more general holding that the mitigation
sections do not apply in cases of fraud. 04 Needless to say, such a view
has even less support in the statute than the liberal one espoused by
Both the Service and the courts have recognized that the related
taxpayer definition is conceived in terms of general law and not in any
sense peculiar to the tax statute. Thus, in Lovering v. United States,0'
the taxpayer, who, as sole beneficiary of a trust, had paid taxes on her
distributive share of its income, was held entitled to refunds after taxes
on the same income had been assessed against the trust on the ground
that it was an association taxable as a corporation.
Similarly, 1. T. 3986166 declared that, for the purposes of section 3801,
the members of a family partnership, not recognized for federal income
tax purposes but valid under local law, were related taxpayers.
On the other hand, in Taxeraas v. United States,1 7 it was held that
the taxpayer's failure to affirmatively prove validity of a partnership
162. Id. at 986.
164. A.B.A. Rep., Section of Taxation, pp. 98-99 (1955).
165. 49 F. Supp. 1 (D. Mass. 1943).
166. 1949-2 Cum. Bull. 108.
167. 269 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 1959), affirming 165 F. Supp. 81 (D. Minn. 1958).
under local law precluded his claim to related taxpayer status in order
to be eligible for a refund under section 1314.
Both the Taxeraas decision and I. T. 3986 seem to be
misconstructions of the related taxpayer definition. In a mitigation case, the
existence of the required relationship cannot be tested against facts wholly
independent of the case. Rather, the very finding of inconsistency
implies a finding that, for the purposes of mitigation, the relationship must
be deemed to have existed because, by keeping the tax money in
question, taxpayer or Commissioner, as the case may be, has, in effect,
admitted such existence.
This argument is objectionable, of course, on at least two grounds.
First, it can be availed of only where the error complained of involves
"ca transaction made possible only by reason of the existence of the
relationship."1 ' This, the Service has insisted, is not required by the
statute. 1 9 It has already been pointed out, however, that the view of
the regulations on this issue may very well not be the law. Moreover,
most of the cases which are likely to arise in this area will surely be
those in which the relationship is a moving force. To restrict the
definition to such cases would not, it is believed, unduly limit the law.
A second objection is that there is being invoked in aid of the statute
a form of estoppel. This may be so, but the mitigation statute was
designed to supplement, not to replace, the older equitable remedies; 170
in fact, these are still in use.'7 ' Moreover, an examination of the cases
under sections 1311 through 1315 and their predecessors suggests that
the statute itself is construed quite frequently with the aid of equity.'
Favoring the suggestion here made is the realization that tax errors
often spring from mistaken beliefs as to the facts or the law or both.
The officers of a corporation may think it owns eighty per cent or more
of the stock of another corporation when, in fact, its title to all or some
part of that stock is not good. A man and woman may believe they are
married only to hear the Supreme Court declare they have been living
in sin. If these mistaken beliefs produce tax consequences, it would
be absurd, as well as contrary to congressional intent, to deny their
effect for the purposes of a tax statute.
Ross v. United States" 3 is usually cited for the proposition that the
16S. Treas. Reg. § 1.1313(c)-1 (1956).
169. Note ISS supra and accompanying text.
170. S.Rep. No. 1567, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 49 (1938).
171. E.g., Daugette v. Patterson, 250 F.2d 753 (5th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 US.
902 (19598). But see Maguire, Surrey & Traynor, Section 320 of the Revenue Act of 193s,
4S Yale L.J. 719, 773-75 (1939).
172. See, e.g., Cain v. Campbell, 59-2 US. Tan Cas. ff 9610 (NJ). Tex. 1959).
173. 14S F. Supp. 330 (D. Mass. 1957).
related taxpayer definitions do not depend upon formal actions for their
creation. A father, using money belonging to his son, bought some real
estate. Less than six months later, he sold it. The proceeds were
deposited in the son's bank account and the short-term gain was included
in a tax return filed for the son. Thereafter, the Commissioner refunded
the tax paid by the son and assessed a deficiency against the father on
the theory that the father had really been dealing for his own account.
The deficiency having been paid, the father sued for a refund and won. 17 4
According to Judge Wyzanski, the use of the son's money had, under
Massachusetts law, created a resulting trust. In consequence, it would
have been legally impossible for the father to have acted for his own
The next step was the Commissioner's successful attempt to recover
the refund paid to the son. The son, the court held, was a related
taxpayer so that the determination with respect to the father was
sufficient to reopen the son's closed year.
In order [said the court] for § 3801(b) to be applicable here, the Rosses... must
be related taxpayers. . . [as was found] in the father's action . . . when the father
took title in his own name in 1944 to an interest in land paid for with the son's money,
a resulting trust arose under Massachusetts law. . . . It is true that a resulting trust
differs from an express trust.. . . Nevertheless, a true trust arises.. . . Hence, in their
relationship as trustee and beneficiary of a resulting trust, the father and son here
stood in the relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary.l'r
The only trouble with this decision is that, in its anxiety to establish
an admittedly sound principle, the court completely overlooked a
statutory requirement which puts the Commissioner at a disadvantage in
related taxpayer cases. In the 1939 Code, section 3801(b) provided
(and 1954 Code section 1311(b) (3) now provides) that an adjustment
with respect to a related taxpayer, which would be assessed as a
deficiency, "shall not be made . . . unless he stands in such relationship
to the taxpayer at the time the latter first maintains the inconsistent
position. . . ." Can it possibly be said that the resulting trust which
produced the necessary relationship here was still in existence when
the father first took his inconsistent position? The entire proceeds of
sale of the property were deposited in the son's bank account,
presumably (although the courts were not explicit) at the time of the sale
in August of 1944.118 The deposit obviously was made at least a matter
of months before the father filed his own return for the year in
question, and years before he claimed a refund. The court itself admits
that the only duty of the trustee of a resulting trust is to transfer title
174. Ross v. United States, 122 F. Supp. 642 (D. Mass. 1954).
175. 148 F. Supp. at 332.
176. Id. at 331.
to the property or its proceeds to the beneficiary.1 7 This act terminates
the trust and the relationship." 8 On these facts, it is submitted, the
Ross case was wrongly decided.
The related taxpayer provision brings into sharp focus a condition
present to some degree in all the mitigation cases. One has the uneasy
feeling in reading the opinions that neither counsel nor the courts have
given much attention to the merits of the purely tax question. All too
often, it seems as if no one has really considered whether, if the statute
had not run, the additional tax or the refund would be payable.
Doubtless this apparent carelessness is the result in part of the prior
determination requirement. If the issue of includability of income or
allowability of deduction has already been argued, it need not be raised
in the mitigation proceeding. The difficulty, however, is that very
different considerations may obtain in the original litigation. If, for example,
I am contesting an assessment on the ground that an item of income
was taxable, if at all, in some year other than that under review, I
may not even raise the issue of taxability and the argument may be
confined strictly to accounting questions. Nevertheless, the decision
in this controversy may assume, or even expressly assert, that the item
is includable in gross income. This finding will then serve as the starting
point for the Commissioner's assessment of a deficiency or my claim
for refund of tax on the same income in the closed year.
The problem assumes its most acute form when the mitigation
proceeding is brought by or against a related taxpayer who was not a party
to the action in which the determination was made.
Consider, for example, the much cited case of Albert W. Priest
Trust. 79 There, a decedent had willed two-thirds of his residuary
estate to a trust for one beneficiary (Itola), and the balance outright
to a second individual (Gwendolyn). A final decree of the probate court,
entered October 11, 1938, ordered distribution. For the year 1938, two
returns were filed, one for the estate to the date of the final decree and
the other for the trust. The estate return showed gross income of
$37,000, deductions of $75,000, and a resulting loss of $38,000, which
was allocated two-thirds to Itola and one-third to Gwendolyn. The
trust return reported about $4,000 in income, all of which was
distributed to and reported by Itola. Upon audit, the Commissioner
disallowed over $52,000 of the deductions and, on the theory that the
estate was no longer in administration during any part of 1938, treated
all but $2,000 of the resulting income as having been distributed to
177. Id. at 332.
178. 4 Scott, Trusts § 410 (2d ed. 1956).
179. 6 T.C. 221, acq., 1946-1 Cum. Bull. 4.
the two individual beneficiaries, against whom deficiencies were
thereupon assessed. Gwendolyn accepted this finding, largely, we may
assume, because even though nearly $8,000 had been added to her income
for the year, her individual deductions were great enough to limit her
tax to about $60. Similarly, the trustees did not protest. After giving
effect to the deductions allowed for distributions, the $52,000 increase
in trust income produced no substantial increase in the tax payable
by the trust. Itola, however, faced with a deficiency of more than
$1,000, opposed the finding. She grounded her opposition, however,
on the argument that the estate administration had, in fact, continued
to the date of the final decree and that it was error, therefore, to treat
the income as having been distributed. She did not contest the
Commissioner's disallowance of deductions on the estate return. The Tax Court
adopted Itola's position. s0 The instant case arose when the
Commissioner assessed a deficiency against the trust, as a related taxpayer,
seeking to tax to the trustees the income which Itola had established
was not taxable to her. Without once appearing to consider the earlier,
rather wholesale, disallowance of estate deductions, the Tax Court
held for the Commissioner.
It is possible, of course, that the taxpayer had as much review of
the basic tax issues in this case as was necessary. But the opinion of
the court certainly fails to make this evident. By the time the original
disallowance of deductions assumed real significance they seem no
longer to have been the subject of argument.
The principal problem which the mitigation statute was expected to
solve was that of the error in a year barred by the statute of limitations.
In point of fact, however, the statute applies to any error described in
the "circumstances of adjustment" section whose correction "is
prevented by the operation of any law or rule of law, other than this
[mitigation] part and other than section 7122 (relating to compro.
mises). ' '181 Thus:
Examples of provisions preventing such corrections are sections 6501, 6511, 6532, and
6901(c), (d) and (e), relating to periods of limitations; sections 6212(c) and 6512
relating to the effect of petition to the Tax Court of the United States on further
deficiency letters and on credits or refunds; section 7121 relating to closing
agreements; and sections 6401 and 6514 relating to payments, refunds, or credits after
the period of limitations has expired. Section 1311 may also be applied to correct the
effect of an error if, on the date of the determination, correction of the erro8r2 is
prevented by the operation of any rule of law, such as res judicata or estoppl.1
180. Itola M. Evans Ransom, 2 T.C. 647 (1943), acq., 1944 Cum. Bull. 23.
181. int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 1311(a).
182. Treas. Reg. § 1.1311(a)-2(a) (1956).
The courts do not seem to have been particularly troubled in
applying the mitigation sections where the question is whether to lift some
statutory bar. A recent case, however, suggests that there may be
considerable difficulty where correction is prevented by a rule of law.
Reference to such rules was inserted in the statute in 1954, ostensibly
for the sole purpose of clarifying existing law.18 3 The recent case
referred to-J. C. Bradford'8l -leads us to believe that further
clarification will be necessary.
In 1938, at a time when taxpayer owed more than $300,000 to a
local bank on three secured promissory notes, his wife endorsed two of
the notes having a combined face amount of $100,000, and substituted
her own note for that of taxpayer to evidence the balance of the
indebtedness. The collateral previously securing the entire debt was
shifted to secure only the wife's note. In 1940, the wife's note was
replaced by two new ones, also signed by her, in the respective face
amounts of $105,000 and $100,000. Three years later, the bank,
having been ordered by examiners to write off half the face amount of
the $100,000 note, advised taxpayer that it would sell such note to
anyone for $50,000. Taxpayer thereupon persuaded his brother-in-law
to make the purchase with funds supplied by taxpayer and his wife.
In 1951, the Commissioner assessed additional taxes against both
taxpayer and his wife on the theory that one of them had realized $50,000
in income upon the purchase of the $100,000 note from the bank. The
cases went to the Tax Court which consolidated them and in 1954
decided that the wife had, and taxpayer had not, realized the $50,000
in income.' 5 The wife appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit which
reversed the Tax Court, finding that the wife had not realized any
income from the discharge of indebtedness.18 0 The Commissioner, who had
not appealed the decision in favor of the taxpayer-husband, now sent
him a new deficiency notice on the theory that if the income had not
been realized by the wife it must have been realized by him. The
taxpayer again went to the Tax Court and this body again found in his
favor: this was not, the court thought, the situation that Congress had
in mind when it provided for reopening barred years.8 7 Congress
intended, said Judge Drennen,
to cover only situations which included some mitigating circumstances to justify
dis183. H.R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. A291 (1954).
184. 34 T.C. 1051 (1960), acq., 1961 Int. Rev. Bull. No. 11 at 7.
185. J. C. Bradford, 22 T.C. 1057 (1954), acq., 1955-2 Cum. Bull. 4, reVd, 233 F.2d
935 (6th Cir. 1956).
186. 233 F.2d 935 (6th Cir. 1956). The court of appeals baced its decizon exduively
upon the net economic consequences to the wife and noted that the quection of the
husband's tax liability was not before it.
187. 34 T.C. 1051, 1058 (1960).
regard of the statute of limitations. Here none appear .... The "error," if any, in this
case was not discovered by the Commissioner "after expiration of the period of
limitations." He litigated this claim against this taxpayer in the Tax Court before the
statute of limitations had run. Nor was there here any "exploitation" of the statute
of limitations or any dilatory action on the part of petitioner to justify any
modification. of the statute of limitations. There is no equitable principle to aid the
Although neither petitioner nor Eleanor reported this item, nevertheless, the
Commissioner included it in income of each one by his notice of deficiency . . . and he
had his day in court on each of those determinations. His determination with respect
to petitioner was reversed in the Tax Court, but the Court sustained his determination
with respect to Eleanor. Eleanor took an appeal . . . and won in the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. The Commissioner could have carried petitioner's case to that
same court . . . and thus protected himself fully without the need of any aid from
sections 1311-1315 of the 1954 Code. Sections 1312(3)(B) and 1311(b) (2) (A) were
not intended to allow the Commissioner under such circumstances to go back and
relitigate the alleged liability of petitioner for tax on this very same item. 188
Thus the Tax Court held, apparently, that res judicata is not
susceptible of avoidance through the mitigation statute. The point is not
discussed, and it is not known, therefore, whether this means that the
congressional attempt of 1954 was wholly ineffective or merely that the
courts will give it a somewhat restricted application. The situation is
one that will bear watching.
When Congress enacted the mitigation statute, it intended to
accomplish a particular result in a particular way. The decisions and rulings
here studied indicate, it is believed, that the statute in its present form
is at once too specific and too vague to permit satisfactory
implementation. In the process of construction, there has been confusion
and error. Extraordinary difficulties have arisen. These, it is suggested,
make necessary a reexamination of the purpose, content, and form of
the statute. Are we certain that we need, and want, a provision for
reopening closed years in tax cases? If such a provision is desirable, is
inconsistency the proper ground for applying it? Are we satisfied also
that, once we have established an inconsistency, we should limit the
application of our rule to the arbitrary list of errors in section 1312, or,
indeed, to any list of errors? Finally, must we have such an elaborate
enactment in this area? Is there not something to be said for a law
that confines itself to the statement of principle and leaves its incidence
to the agencies regularly charged with interpretation?
Questions like these should be asked before we ever embark on
legislation. They seldom are. We can hope, however, for some such
inquiries in connection with the sort of tax revision that now seems in
18. Cory v. Commissioner , 261 F.2d 702 , 704 ( 2d Cir . 1953 ).
19. Note, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1536 , 1547 ( 1959 ).
20. Cary , Reflections Upon the American Law Institute Tax Project and the Internal Revenue Code: A Plea for a Moratorium and Reappraisal, 60 Colum. L. Rev . 259 ( 1960 ).
21. Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1313 (a).
22. Treas . Reg. § 1 .1313( a )- 4 (d) ( 1956 ) ; cf . Rev. Rul . 60 - 287 , 1960 - 2 Cum. Bull. 188 . Whether these special agreements have been extensively used is not, and apparently cannot, be known . Authority to make the agreements has been delegated to the district directors. Action with respect to them does not, therefore, "ordinarily come to the attention of the National Office." Letter from J. B . Sefert , Director of Audit Division (Symbols O:A:P) to Author , July 5 , 1960 .
23. Maguire , Surrey & Traynor, Section 820 of the Revenue Act of 1938 , 48 Yale L.J. 719 , 720 ( 1939 ).
24. Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1312 lists the following circumstances under which adjustment is authorized: "(1) Double inclusion of an item of gross Income . . . (2) Double allowance of a deduction or credit . . . (3) Double exclusion of an item of gross income . . . (4) Double disallowance of a deduction or credit . . . (5) Correlative deductions and inclusions for trusts or estates and legatees, beneficiaries, or heirs . . . (6) Correlative deductions and credits for certain related corporations . . . (7) Basis of property after erroneous treatment of a prior transaction . .. ."
25. The two situations that are excepted are described in paragraphs 3(B) and 4 of Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1312 .
26. Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1311 (b).
27. Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1311 (a).
28. It is believed that the major share of the blame for this erroneous practice must be borne by taxpayers' counsel who cannot abandon the habit of urging offsts . Sze, e g. Herman Paster , 20 CCH Tax Ct . Mlem. 1239 ( 1961 ); W. L. Loback, 9 CCH Tax Ct . Mem. 333 ( 1950 ); Anton Dolenz, 41 B.T.A. 1091 ( 1940 ), acq. on other issue , 1940-2 Cum. Bull. 2 . There appears, however, to be some feeling in the Tax Court that -with proper pleading, the determination requirement can be avoided . See, e.g., Irving Segall , 30 T.C. 734 ( 195 ); Kenosha Auto Trans . Corp., 23 T.C. 421 , acq . , 1957-2 Cum. Bull . 5 ; Roscoe Lilly, 15 CCII Tax Ct . Mem. 1087 ( 1956 ); Sam D. Hecht, 16 T.C. 931 ( 1951 ).
29. 12 CCII Tax CL Mlem . 7S6 ( 1953 ).
30. Id . at 793-94.
31. 5 CCH Tax Ct . Mlem. 332 ( 1946 ).
68. Maguire , Surrey & Traynor, Section 820 of Revenue Act of 1938 , 48 Yale L.J. 719 , 751 ( 1939 ).
69. Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 61 .
70. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co . v. United States, Ill Ct. ci. 576 , 78 F. Supp . 94 ( 1948 ).
71. Gooch Milling &Elevator Co ., 10 P -H B.T .A. Mem. 1356 ( 1941 ).
72. 320 U.S. 418 , reversing 133 F.2d 131 ( 8th Cir . 1943 ).
89. 17 T.C. at 940-41.
90. Dubuque Packing Co. v. United States , 126 F. Supp . 796 (N.D .Iowa 194).
91. Moultrie Cotton Aills v. United States, 133 CL CL 203 , 151 F. Supp . 432 ( 1957 ).
92. 1944 Cum. Bull. 83 , amending Treas . Reg . 111 , § 29 .22( d )- 1 ( 1943 ).
108. Olin Industries , Inc. v. Dallman, 56 -1 U.S. Tax Cas. I5 9188 (S.D. Ill . 1956 ).
109. Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1312 ( 4 ).
110. 265 F.2d at 296. It is clear, of course, that the amount of income involved need not be identical for both year of determination and year of error. First Nat'l Bank v . Commissioner , 205 F.2d 82 , 85 ( 3d Cir . 1953 ); see Maguire, Surrey & Traynor, Section 820 of the Revenue Act of 1938 , 48 Yale L.J. 719 , 752 ( 1939 ). It is also clear that the items must be more than merely similar . D. A. MacDonald , 17 T.C. 934 , 940 - 41 ( 1951 ). The question, then, is whether a difference in tax character falls between these two extremes or is governed by the latter rule. The language of the court in First Nat'l Bank, supra, suggests that the latter rule is applicable .
Ill . Int. Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1314 (a).
112. 33 T.C. 813 , acq . , 1960-1 Cum. Bull . 4 ; accord, Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 19 CCH Tax Ct. Mem . 347 ( 1960 ).
149. 138 Ct. Cl. 208 , 151 F. Supp . 482 ( 1957 ).
150. 144 Ct. Cl. 46 , 168 F. Supp . 769 , vacating 144 Ct. Cl. 56 , 162 F. Supp . 763 ( 1958 ).
151. 111 Ct. Cl. 576 , 78 F. Supp . 94 ( 1948 ).
152. 111 Ct. Cl. 664 , 78 F. Supp . 101 ( 1948 ).
153. Sarner , Adopting an Inconsistent Position May, Though Rarely, Open a Closed Tax Year , 11 J. Taxation- 35 , 37 ( 1959 ).
154. Note, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1536 , 1549 ( 1959 ).
155. Id . at 1548 n.90.
156. The circumstances are the first four enumerated in Int . Rev. Code of 1954 , § 1312 , i.e., double inclusions of items of gross income, double allowances of deductions or credits, double exclusions of items of gross income, and double disallowances of deductions or credits. The term "related taxpayer" also appears in the descriptions of the fifth and