Comensoli v. Commissioner

422 F. App'x 412
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 5, 2011
Docket10-1145
StatusUnpublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 422 F. App'x 412 (Comensoli v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Comensoli v. Commissioner, 422 F. App'x 412 (6th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Peter M. Comensoli appeals from the decision of the Tax Court upholding the levy and federal tax lien assessed against Comensoli personally for unpaid employment taxes, including penalties and interest, owed by Paradym Group, LLC, for the fourth quarter of 2005. There is no dispute that Paradym was a single-member entity and did not make an affirmative election to be treated as a corporation separate from its owner under the applicable “check-the-box” regulations. Nor did Comensoli contest the fact or amount of the debt. The only disputed issue was whether the owner of Paradym was Comensoli, or a corporation that was, in turn, owned by Comensoli. Finding no clear error, we affirm the decision of the Tax Court.

I.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined Paradym’s employment tax liability, including penalties and interest, to be $42,016.62, and sent Comensoli a Notice of Intent to Levy in April 2007, and a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing in June 2007. Comensoli requested and received collection-due-process hearings under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6330 and 6320. The IRS issued a Notice of Determination upholding the levy on September 18, 2007, and a Notice of Determination upholding the lien on January 11, 2008. Those determinations rejected Comensoli’s contention that he was not the sole owner of Paradym. Comensoli filed separate petitions contesting the determinations, which were consolidated for trial. Trial was held on February 3, 2009, and the Tax Court issued its decision in favor of the Commissioner on October 26, 2009. This appeal followed.

II.

We review the Tax Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Zack v. Comm’r, 291 F.3d 407, 412 (6th Cir.2002); Ekman v. Comm’r, 184 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir.1999). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, a review of the entire record leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Gross v. Comm’r, 272 F.3d 333, 343 (6th Cir.2001); see also Holmes v. Comm’r, 184 F.3d 536, 543 (6th Cir.1999). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” *414 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Further, we give considerable deference to the Tax Court’s “first-hand assessment of the credibility of witnesses.” Kosinski v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 671, 680 (6th Cir.2008); see also Indmar Prods. Co. v. Comm’r, 444 F.3d 771, 778 (6th Cir.2006).

Paradym Group, LLC, admittedly a one-member limited liability company, did not file a Form 8832, Entity Classification Election, electing to be treated as a separate entity for federal tax purposes under the check-the-box regulations, Treas. Reg. § 301.7701-3(a) (26 C.F.R., 2005 ed.). As a result, Paradym was “disregarded” as an entity separate from its owner and deemed to be a sole proprietorship for all federal tax purposes, Treas. Reg. §§ 301.7701-2(a), (c)(2), and 301.7701-3(b)(ii). By not electing treatment as a separate entity, Paradym’s owner avoided double taxation. See Littnello v. United States, 484 F.3d 372, 375-76 (6th Cir.2007) (upholding the validity of these regulations). As noted, the only disputed issue was whether Comensoli or a corporation owned by him was the owner of Paradym. 1

A. Facts

The stipulated facts and evidence admitted at trial included Paradym’s “Articles of Organization,” filed with the State of Michigan on December 20, 2004, which identified Paradym as a “temporary and contract labor agency.” This organizing document was signed and filed by Comensoli as Paradym’s “Organizer.” Both the 2006 and 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Statements for Paradym were signed by Comensoli in the box for “authorized member, manager or agent.” On the 2006 Annual Statement, dated December 4, 2005, Comensoli wrote in his title as “Managing Member,” while on the 2007 Annual Statement, dated January 12, 2007, Comensoli wrote in his title as “Owner.” No other person or entity was identified in these documents as an owner, member, or manager of Paradym.

Federal employment taxes were paid by Paradym for the first three quarters of 2005. The returns for the first two quarters were signed by Comensoli as Paradym’s “President.” The third and fourth quarter returns were also prepared with a signature block for Comensoli to sign as “President,” but both signature blocks were left blank. All four quarterly returns automatically listed A. Adonu Idahosa, CPA, PLC, and the firm Symphony Financial Services, Inc., in the section for “paid preparers,” although none of these returns were prepared or signed by Idahosa. Comensoli and Idahosa, friends and long-time business associates, divided office space between themselves, Symphony, and Paradym. Comensoli testified that he reported his income and expenses from Symphony on Schedule C of his personal tax return.

Symphony was initially incorporated as TCF Leasing, Inc., by Comensoli and several family members in 1992, and later filed a certificate of assumed name to do business as Allen Associates. In 2000, after selling the name to TCF Bank, TCF Leasing filed an amendment changing its name to Symphony Financial Sendees, Inc., and renewed the certificate of assumed name to do business as Allen Associates. In April 2007, another amendment was filed changing the corporation’s name from Symphony to Back Porch Workout, Inc. (Back Porch, f/k/a Symphony). All of *415 these filings were signed by Comensoli on behalf of the corporation. Comensoli testified that he is the sole shareholder of Back Porch.

Comensoli, who had a degree in accounting and almost five years of experience working as an IRS Revenue Agent, testified that he did not know that the fourtl} quarter employment taxes had not been paid until collection action was taken against him personally in January 2007.

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

Related

Yagoub Tibin
U.S. Tax Court, 2024
Steven Jacobowitz
U.S. Tax Court, 2023
FAB Holdings, LLC
U.S. Tax Court, 2022
Heber E. Costello, LLC v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Memo. 184 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 F. App'x 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comensoli-v-commissioner-ca6-2011.