1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*53
In computing the deduction for taxes "paid or accrued" (
25 T.C. 175">*175 OPINION.
Respondent has determined a deficiency in the 1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*54 personal holding company surtax of petitioner for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1950, in the amount of $ 16,964.29. In computing its subchapter A net income petitioner claimed and has been allowed a deduction for income taxes accrued in respect of its fiscal year ended June 30, 1950. The sole issue is whether in making such computation petitioner may also deduct amounts paid during the above taxable year in respect of income taxes owed on account of prior taxable years.
All of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, with principal address in Kenilworth, Illinois. It filed its corporation income tax and personal holding company returns for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1950, on the cash basis with the collector of internal revenue for the first district of Illinois.
Petitioner had filed its income tax returns on a calendar year basis for the calendar year 1948 and prior thereto. On March 31, 1949, permission was obtained from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to change the taxable period to a fiscal year ending June 30. The 25 T.C. 175">*176 first income tax return filed in accordance with this1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*55 change was for the period January 1, 1949, to June 30, 1949. Thereafter, all returns have been filed on the basis of a fiscal year ending June 30 of each year.
During its fiscal year ended June 30, 1950, petitioner was a personal holding company. Subchapter A net income for the fiscal period January 1, 1949, to June 30, 1949, after deduction of Federal income taxes paid during that period was $ 282,127.11. The Federal income taxes paid as aforesaid were as follows:
(a) First quarterly installment of income tax for the calendar | |
year 1948 | $ 16,786.33 |
(b) Second quarterly installment of income tax for the calendar | |
year 1948 | 16,786.33 |
(c) Income tax deficiency for the calendar year 1942 | 3,128.09 |
(d) Income tax deficiency for the calendar year 1943 | 463.79 |
Total | $ 37,164.54 |
As of June 30, 1950, petitioner accrued Federal income tax for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1950, in the amount of $ 37,098.55. That amount was deducted by petitioner in computing its subchapter A net income and the deduction so claimed was allowed by respondent. In addition thereto, petitioner paid during its fiscal year 1950 Federal income taxes in respect of prior taxable periods 1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*56 as follows:
(a) Income tax deficiency for the calendar years 1942 to 1945, | |
inclusive | $ 821.17 |
(b) Income tax deficiency for the calendar year 1946 | 1,638.57 |
(c) Third quarterly installment of income tax for the calendar | |
year 1948 | 16,786.33 |
(d) Final installment of income tax for the calendar year 1948 | 16,786.32 |
(e) First half payment of income tax for the period January 1, | |
1949, to June 30, 1949 | 8,985.22 |
(f) Final payment of income tax for the period January 1, 1949, | |
to June 30, 1949 | 8,985.22 |
Total | $ 54,002.83 |
Petitioner deducted the foregoing sum of $ 54,002.83 in computing subchapter A net income for its fiscal year 1950. Respondent has disallowed such deduction.
In computing its subchapter A net income in each of its taxable years 1942 to 1948, inclusive, petitioner deducted only Federal income taxes paid during each such year and did not accrue any Federal income tax liability during that period.
Petitioner's subchapter A net income for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1950, after deduction of Federal income taxes accrued but without deduction of Federal income taxes paid, was $ 618,752.51. During that fiscal year it paid $ 591,800 in taxable1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*57 dividends excluding (a) dividends claimed in the preceding year under section 504 (c), and (b) deficiency dividends as defined in section 506 (c). The dividend 25 T.C. 175">*177 carryover in that year from the first and second preceding taxable years was $ 6,078.50. Petitioner's dividends paid credit amounted to $ 597,878.50.
For the purposes of this subchapter the term "Subchapter A Net Income" means the net income with the following adjustments:
(a) Additional Deductions. -- There shall be allowed as deductions -- (1) Federal income, war-profits, and excess-profits taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year * * *
The controversy before us is whether petitioner may deduct under these provisions both the taxes accrued and the taxes paid by it during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1950, and this controversy turns upon the meaning to be accorded to the words "paid or accrued." In
The scheme as a whole contemplates the application of the penalty tax solely to the income transactions of a single tax year, and it is income remaining after dividend disbursements and tax payments
In substance, the court held that since the personal holding company provisions impose a "penalty" tax on undistributed income for a given 25 T.C. 175">*178 year the purpose of the statute requires that the events relating to that year be isolated and considered apart from other years. Accordingly, 1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*60 in computing the deduction for taxes "paid or accrued," the particular accounting system employed is to be ignored, and the taxes to be deducted are those imposed with respect to the very year under consideration, whether or not they were paid during that year.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit similarly held that a cash basis taxpayer could accrue its taxes for the year involved in determining its subchapter A net income for that year.
To be sure, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in
If the words "paid or accrued" are not to be given their normal meaning based upon the method of accounting employed, as we originally held they should be, and if they are to be given a meaning based upon an analysis of the purpose of the statute, as set forth in detail by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the
To allow deduction here not only for 1950 taxes but also for taxes with respect to prior years would in effect lay the foundation for double deduction of the same taxes, first in the year of accrual and second in the year of actual payment. It is no answer1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 53">*63 to say that no double deductions would result on the record before us, because, if petitioner is correct in its interpretation of the statute, such would inevitably follow in the typical case. We cannot assume that Congress intended any such extraordinary result.
The petitioner points to certain language difficulties that would follow if its position is not sustained. Thus, it argues that the word "paid" in "paid or accrued" would be deprived of any meaning unless it were allowed the deduction which it seeks. However, the difficulty is actually attributable to the decisions refusing to give the words "paid or accrued" their normal meaning which turns upon the accounting system employed, and by substituting a meaning said to be required by the purpose of the statute. Indeed, once it is decided not to give the pivotal words "paid or accrued" their normal meaning, any interpretation, whether that approved in the
The theory of the