BARBER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

1999 T.C. Memo. 260, 78 T.C.M. 235, 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 299
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 4, 1999
DocketNo. 7197-98
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 T.C. Memo. 260 (BARBER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
BARBER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1999 T.C. Memo. 260, 78 T.C.M. 235, 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 299 (tax 1999).

Opinion

LLOYD L. BARBER, JR. AND JANET M. BARBER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
BARBER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
No. 7197-98
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1999-260; 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 299; 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 235; T.C.M. (RIA) 99260;
August 4, 1999, Filed

*299 Decision will be entered for respondent.

Lloyd L. Barber, *300 Jr. and Janet M. Barber, pro sese.
Stephen Baker, for respondent.
Jacobs, Julian I.

JACOBS

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

JACOBS, JUDGE: Respondent determined a $ 2,422 deficiency in petitioners' 1995 Federal income tax.

The issue for decision concerns petitioners' entitlement to a deduction on their individual 1995 Federal tax return for claimed losses incurred by Legal Search, Inc., all the stock of which is owned by Lloyd L. Barber (petitioner). Resolution of this issue depends upon whether a timely election on Form 2553 was filed on behalf of the corporation.

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years under consideration. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.

At the time petitioners filed their petition, they resided in Anchorage, Alaska.

Legal Search, Inc. (Legal Search) was incorporated in Alaska on December 2, 1993. It performed legal research and prepared legal documents through petitioner, a self-taught paralegal.

Respondent's *301 records do not reflect that an election was ever made by Legal Search on Form 2553 for treatment as a small business corporation. (A May 18, 1999, Certification of Lack of Record to this effect was secured from the Custodian of Records for the Ogden Service Center and is part of the record.)

On April 17, 1996, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received petitioners' Federal income tax return, Form 1040, for 1995. On the return, petitioners reported an $ 8,613 pass-through loss from Legal Search, which petitioners claim is an S corporation. Because the IRS had no record of an election for S corporation status for Legal Search, on January 30, 1998, respondent mailed petitioners a notice of deficiency disallowing the claimed $ 8,613 deduction.

OPINION

The ultimate dispute herein involves whether a timely election was made by Legal Search to be treated as an S corporation. See sec. 1362. If so, petitioners properly claimed a deduction for the loss attributable to Legal Search on their 1995 Federal income tax return. See sec. 1366. If not, respondent properly disallowed the deduction.

Section 1362(a)(1) allows a small business corporation, as defined pursuant to section 1361, to elect S*302 corporation status. An S corporation election can be made for any taxable year at any time during the preceding taxable year or on or before the 15th day of the third month of the current taxable year. See sec. 1362(b)(1). These time limits were imposed so that a corporation could not make an election after it could predict its profitability for the year with any certainty. Thus, this time restraint prevented taxpayers from using S corporation status solely as a tax-avoidance mechanism. See H. Rept. 95-1445, at 104 (1978), 1978-3 C.B. (Vol. 1) 181, 278.

A corporation that elects to take advantage of the benefits of being treated as an S corporation must comply with the requirements for making the election. See, e.g., Garrett & Garrett, P.C. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1993-453. Under section 1362(a), a corporation elects to be treated as an S corporation by filing a Form 2553. No election is recognized in the absence of the timely filing of a Form 2553. See, e.g., Mitchell Offset Plate Serv., Inc. v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 235, 238-240 (1969); Fankhauser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1998-328.*303 1 Generally, a document is considered filed with the IRS when it is received by that agency. See, e.g., United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76, 60 L. Ed. 897, 36 S. Ct. 508 (1916).

Petitioners seek the benefit of special statutory provisions that are dependent upon the timely filing of a Form 2553.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Lombardo
241 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court, 1916)
Commissioner v. Sunnen
333 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Lois Anderson v. United States
966 F.2d 487 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Commissioner
104 T.C. No. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Commissioner
104 T.C. No. 21 (U.S. Tax Court, 1995)
Pestcoe v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 195 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Mitchell Offset Plate Service, Inc. v. Commissioner
53 T.C. 235 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)
Kronish v. Commissioner
90 T.C. No. 42 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Hofstetter v. Commissioner
98 T.C. No. 48 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
Harrah's Club v. United States
661 F.2d 203 (Court of Claims, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1999 T.C. Memo. 260, 78 T.C.M. 235, 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-tax-1999.