281 U.S. 245
LUCAS, Internal Revenue Com'r,
PILLIOD LUMBER CO.
Argued Jan. 14, 1930.
Decided April 14, 1930.
[281 U.S. 245, 246] The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Henry M. Ward, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Using therefor what is known as 'Form 1013T,' on March 14, 1919, respondent, Pilliod Lumber Company, executed and filed with the collector of internal revenue a tentative return and estimate of corporate income and profits taxes for 1918, signed and sworn to by its president and treasurer. At the same time it remitted $1,000, one-fourth of the estimated taxes, and requested an extension of forty-five days within which to present a final report as required by law.
May 31, 1919, it lodged with the collector another return for 1918, made out upon Form 1120, which contained various statements in respect of gross income, deductions, credits, etc., but was not signed or sworn to by anyone.
In answer to a request from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent's president and treasurer swore to and filed with him, September 17, 1923, the following affidavit concerning the return of May 31-
The Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1081, 1083, provides:
The Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 287, 299, 301, by section 239(a), 26 USCA 991(a), requires corporations to make returns like those prescribed by the Act of 1918. Sec- [281 U.S. 245, 248] tion 277(a), 26 USCA 1057, note, directs that except as provided in section 278 (26 USCA 1058-1062 note), which relates to false or fraudulent returns, and certain subdivisions of section 274 (26 USCA 1048-1057 note) and 279 (26 USCA 1063 note), not presently important, taxes for 1921, and afterwards, shall be assessed within four years after return filed; also that taxes for 1918, etc., shall be assessed within five years after return filed. Section 280 (26 USCA 1064 note) declares: If hereafter the Commissioner determines that any assessment should be made in respect of any income, war-profits, or excess-profits tax imposed by the Revenue Acts of 1916, 1917, 1918, or 1921, the amount which should be assessed (whether as deficiency or as interest, penalty, or other addition to the tax) shall be computed as if this act had not been enacted, but the amount so computed shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions and limitations (including the provisions in case of delinquency in payment after notice and demand) as in the case of the taxes imposed by this title, except as otherwise provided in section 277.
Respondent maintains that the five-year statute of limitations began to run against the claim for 1918 taxes when the tentative return of March 14, 1919, was filed with the collector, or when he received the unverified return, May 31, 1919, and therefore the deficiency assessment of October 23, 1925, was out of time.
The argument based upon the supposed effect of the first or tentative return is the same as that considered and rejected in Florsheim Bros., etc ., v. United States (White, Collector, v. Hood Rubber Co.), 280 U.S. 453 , 50 S. Ct. 215, decided February 24, 1930
That the so-called return of May 31, 1919, unsupported by oath, did not then meet the definite requirements of section 239 is manifest. But, respondent says the defect was cured or became immaterial since the tax officers accepted and held the return for several years, and in 1923 requested and obtained an adequate verification by the proper corporate officers. [281 U.S. 245, 249] Under the established general rule a statute of limitation runs against the United States only when they assent and upon the conditions prescribed. Here assent that the statute might begin to run was conditioned upon the presentation of a return duly sworn to. No officer had power to substitute something else for the thing specified. The return so long as it remained unverified by oath of proper corporate officers did not meet the plain requirements. The necessity for meticulous compliance by the taxpayer with all named conditions in order to secure the benefit of the limitation was distinctly pointed out in Florsheim Bros., etc., v. United States, supra.
The Board of Tax Appeals reached the proper result. The judgment of the court below must be reversed.