Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Great N. R. Co. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1934)
- National Life Insurance Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1996)
- Wolfson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*2240 The taxpayer keeping its accounts on an accrual basis, paid in 1918 a tax which accrued and became due and payable in the year 1917.
*893 Before JAMES, SMITH, and TRUSSELL.
This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency in income tax for the year 1918 in the amount of $74,121.83.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
The taxpayer is a Virginia corporation with its principal office at Wilmington, N.C.
During the year 1918, the property of the taxpayer was operated by the United States under the Director General of Railroads. In and for that year the Director General paid to the Treasury of the United States an amount known as the 2 per cent tax under the Federal Control Act in the amount of $74,947.01.
On or about April 1, 1918, the taxpayer paid $540,734.89 taxes on its property in Florida. This payment was made to the comptroller of the State of Florida. The taxes related to the year 1917, and these taxes the Director General on behalf of the United States declined*2241 to assume and pay out of the operating revenues, thereby requiring the taxpayer itself to assume the obligation.
Under the statutes of Florida, fully set forth in the opinion below, the taxpayer had for many years paid its property taxes in April of each year succeeding the year for which such taxes were due. This was done consistently and as a matter of convenience, since all the taxes could under the statutes be paid to the comptroller of the State in one sum, whereas, if paid to the several localities, the procedure of tax payment was more difficult and expensive than if the taxes were allowed to go unpaid until they were payable under the statutes to the comptroller.
The taxpayer keeps its accounts, and during the taxable year in question kept its accounts, on the accrual basis. The taxes in the State of Florida were due and payable on November 1 each year, and the taxes here in question were due and payable on November 1, 1917.
DECISION.
The deficiency should be computed in accordance with the following opinion. Final determination will be settled on 15 days' notice, under Rule 50.
OPINION.
JAMES: Two grounds of appeal are stated by the taxpayer: First, that*2242 it should not be assessed and taxed upon a certain sum paid by the Director General of Railroads on account of the 2 per cent Federal income tax; second, that there should be allowed as a deduction Florida taxes which became due and payable November 1, 1917, *894 and which were paid by the taxpayer out of corporate funds on or about April 1, 1918.
The first issue has been determined by the Board in the . That decision is fully controlling in this case and decisive of this issue.
The second point presents a new and distinct issue to the Board. The taxpayer, keeping its books and reporting its income on an accrual basis, for reasons of convenience in its business, adopted a consistent policy with respect to Florida taxes whereby it accrued such taxes upon its books and paid them upon the penalty date - that is, the date when the amount of such taxes was reported by local authority to the comptroller of the State of Florida and after that date was payable to him. This procedure was followed under the provisions of sections 741, 752, and 753 of the General Statutes of Florida, the sections reading*2243 in full as follows:
SEC. (741.)
SEC. (753.)
*895 It is entirely clear that, under the provisions of the above statute, the taxes here in question became due and payable and accrued during the taxable year 1917. ; .
The next inquiry, then, is, if a taxpayer keeps books of account upon one of the bases recognized in section 200 of the Revenue Act of 1918 as proper for the purpose of reporting income but consistently follows the practice of treating some item or items upon a different basis, whether that departure may be recognized for the purpose of computing its net income for the purpose of taxation, or whether the principle of accounting regularly adopted by the taxpayer is controlling throughout and must be consistently followed throughout? *2246 We have already held that general departures from either system of accounting prescribed by the statute may not be recognized where such departures do not clearly reflect the income of the taxpayer, ; and that in general "paid or accrued," where used in the statute, is to be construed in the alternative and does not permit the combining of both bases in one income-tax return. . See .
We believe the decision in the
But it is said that this results in a distortion of the taxpayer's*2247 income and in the disallowance of a deduction to which it is properly entitled.
The taxpayer chooses to keep its accounts upon a basis which excludes from the deductions for the year 1918 the item here in question. Moreover, its net income for that year was computed upon the basis of net income after payment of taxes to Florida by the Director General of Railroads and he did accrue and pay the taxes to that State for the year 1918 in connection with the operation of the railroad under his control. The taxpayer, therefore, is in no different position here than it would have been had it retained control of its railroad property, accrued and deducted taxes to the State of Florida for the year 1918 in the same manner as did the Director General of Railroads and then claimed an additional deduction *896 on account of taxes for the year 1917 in the same year's income-tax return upon the sole ground that it had changed its accounting methods and not having properly deducted the taxes for the year 1917, was entitled to that deduction also in and for the year 1918. Manifestly, such a contention upon the part of the taxpayer could not be allowed. If it were, the statute would then*2248 be construed to read that taxes and other charges both paid and accrued during the taxable year, even though involving duplications, must be allowed as deductions. We have already held otherwise, Upon this point the determination of the Commissioner must be approved.
TRUSSELL dissenting.
PHILLIPS concurring in decision only.
ARUNDELL not participating.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.