Maxwell, Comr. of Revenue v. Hinsdale
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA on Relation of A. J. MAXWELL, Commissioner of Revenue, v. S. J. HINSDALE, M. W. McPHERSON and R. H. ANDREWS, Trustees in Bankruptcy of CENTRAL LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, Bankrupt
Opinion of the Court
BeogdeN, J.
C. S., 7880 (155), provides that “a taxpayer may apply to tbe Commissioner of Revenue for revision of tax assessed against him at any time within three years from tbe time of tbe filing of tbe return or from tbe date of tbe notice of tbe assessment of any additional tax,” etc. Tbe record discloses that tbe taxpayer filed no claim with tbe Commissioner of Revenue for tbe revision of said tax until 30 December, 1932, which was more tban three years from tbe date required for tbe filing of income tax returns. Tbe taxpayer, however, asserts that tbe three-year limitation begins to run from tbe date of tbe redetermination by tbe Federal Government, as provided in C. S., Michie’s Code of 1931, 7880 (152), and that as such action was taken on 3 December, 1929, tbe claim is not barred. This contention, however, cannot be sustained for tbe reason that tbe statute of limitations above referred to is explicit and unequivocal. Moreover, tbe taxpayer is not saved by tbe application of C. S., 7880 (152), supra, for tbe reason that this statute provides that “such taxpayer, within thirty days after receipt of final determination by tbe United States Government of bis corrected net income, shall make return under oath or affirmation to tbe Commissioner of Revenue of such final determined income.” Tbe new return contení- *39 plated by tbe foregoing statute was not made by tbe bankrupt until 30 December, 1932. Therefore, there was a total failure to comply with the positive provision of the law. It was said in Association v. Strickland, 200 N. C., 630 , 158 S. E., 110 , that “the courts everywhere are in accord with the proposition that if a valid statutory method of determining a disputed question has been established, such remedy so provided is exclusive, and must be first resorted to, and in the manner specified therein.” See Mann v. North Carolina State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 206 N. C., 853 .
Affirmed.
SciieNCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.