Bowman v. Commissioner

1969 T.C. Memo. 23, 28 T.C.M. 109, 1969 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 30, 1969
DocketDocket Nos. 7126-65, 7127-65.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1969 T.C. Memo. 23 (Bowman v. Commissioner) 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
Bowman v. Commissioner, 1969 T.C. Memo. 23, 28 T.C.M. 109, 1969 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276 (tax 1969).

Opinion

James D. Bowman and Merle C. Bowman v. Commissioner. Mid-South Engineering Company, Inc. v. Commissioner.
Bowman v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 7126-65, 7127-65.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1969-23; 1969 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276; 28 T.C.M. (CCH) 109; T.C.M. (RIA) 69023;
January 30, 1969, Filed
Clyde W. Key, Bank of Knoxville Bldg., Knoxville, Tenn., for the petitioners. Charles G. Barnett, for the respondent.

TIETJENS

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

TIETJENS, Judge: In these consolidated proceedings, the Commissioner determined income tax deficiencies and additions to tax as follows:

Additions to Tax
DocketTaxable YearSec. 6653(a),
PetitionerNo.EndingDeficiencyI.R.C. 1954
James D. and Merie C.7126-6512/31/58$ 18,495.77
Bowman12/31/5979,395.46
12/31/6058,588.44
12/31/6143,389.56
12/31/6261,498.96
Mid-South Engineering7127-653/31/60220,197.56$ 11,925.16
Company, Inc.3/31/62100,011.615,000.58
Due to concessions, only the following issues remain:

(1) Whether the costs incurred in the operation*277 and maintenance of a stable of show horses are deductible by Mid-South Engineering Company, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as M-S.E.) as ordinary and necessary trade or business expenses under section 162, I.R.C. 1954; if not,

(2) Whether these expenses constitute constructive dividends to James D. Bowman, the sole shareholder of M-S.E.; and

(3) Whether any part of the underpayment of M-S.E.'s income tax was due to negligence or an intentional disregard of rules and regulations so as to make section 6653(a), I.R.C. 1954, applicable.

Findings of Fact

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

James D. and Merle C. Bowman are husband and wife who resided in Knoxville, Tennessee at the time they filed their petition herein. They filed timely joint Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962 with the district director of internal revenue, Nashville, Tennessee. As Merle C. Bowman is a party to these proceedings solely by reason of having filed joint income tax returns with her husband for the years*278 at issue in these proceedings, James D. Bowman will hereinafter sometimes be referred to as the "individual petitioner" or "Bowman."

Mid-South Engineering Company, Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "corporate petitioner" or "M-S.E.," is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee with its principal office in Knoxville, Tennessee.

M-S.E. maintains its general books and records on the accrual method of accounting. M-S.E.'s first year of operation was the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, and thereafter the corporate petitioner timely filed corporation income tax returns for fiscal years ending March 31, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963 with the district director of internal revenue, Nashville, Tennessee.

Bowman was president, director, and the sole stockholder of M-S.E. for all years at issue herein. As president of the corporate petitioner, the individual petitioner received 111 an annual salary of $ 36,000 for each of these years.

At the time of the trial, the individual petitioner was 55 years old and his educational experience included high school and two quarters at the University of Tennessee. Prior to his organization of M-S.E., Bowman*279 was in the business of constructing sewers, pipelines, street paving, airports and highways with most of his prior work being done in the immediate vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee. Mr. Bowman was not a professional engineer.

For all the years in issue, all of the engineering work performed by M-S.E. was done in connection with projects in either Tennessee or Alabama with the exception of minor contracts in Georgia and Florida. During these years, M-S.E.

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

Related

RL Blaffer & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.
103 F.2d 487 (Fifth Circuit, 1939)
Greenspon v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 138 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)
Courtney v. Commissioner
28 T.C. 658 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
Walet v. Commissioner
31 T.C. 461 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Larrabee v. Commissioner
33 T.C. 838 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Henry v. Commissioner
36 T.C. 879 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Mohr v. Commissioner
45 T.C. 600 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
R. L. Blaffer & Co. v. Commissioner
37 B.T.A. 851 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1969 T.C. Memo. 23, 28 T.C.M. 109, 1969 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-commissioner-tax-1969.