Cooper v. Commissioner
This text of 25 T.C. 894 (Cooper 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.
Opinion
OPINION.
Section 58 1 of the 1939 Code plainly sets forth who shall make a declaration of estimated tax, the time and place for filing such declaration, when amendments of a declaration may be filed, and the effect of filing a completed return of income on or before January 15 of the succeeding taxable year. Section 2942 of the 1939 Code provides that there shall be added to the tax certain “additions” for failure to make and file a declaration of estimated tax within the time prescribed unless such failure is shown “to be due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.”
Petitioners contend that their failure to file the prescribed declaration was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. The respondent determined otherwise, which places the burden of proof upon the petitioners.
Petitioner John Adrian Cooper appeared pro se and testified that prior to 1936 he was in business for himself; that he did not do so well; that in 1936 he went to work as a building superintendent for the Forcum-James Company at $36 a week; that in 1940 he made a deal with them whereby they would furnish all of the capital and equipment and he would perform the supervising, and at the end of the year, if there was any profit, he would receive 40 per cent of it, with the understanding that his part of any loss was also 40 per cent; that under this arrangement he made money in some of the years and in some of the years he lost money; that in 1950 he received no money until December 19, 1950, when he received $32,249.83 and another $5,000 on January 10, 1951; that up to December 19 he had spent about $5,000 of his own money for traveling expenses and hotel bills; that during 1950 he had supervised seven different jobs, some of which resulted in a profit and some in a loss; that at the time he was supposed to have filed the declaration on March 15, he had spent around $2,500 of his own money and had not received one cent from the company; that as far as he knew he had not earned any money; that by June he had spent more for traveling and hotel bills and had not received anything from the company and did not know whether or not he was going to get anything; and that the same situation existed on September 30,1950.
We think the evidence offered by petitioner falls short of overcoming the prima facie correctness of the respondent’s determination. In the first place, we do not know whether the “deal” petitioner- made with the Forcum-James Company in 1940 was in writing or oral. We do not know how the profits or losses on the various contracts were determined. If all the contracts had resulted in an over-all net loss instead of an over-all net gain, we do not know whether petitioner would have been called upon to pay the Forcum-James Company 40 per cent of such net loss out of his own funds. We are left uninformed as to when the seven contracts which petitioner supervised during 1950 were completed. No evidence has been offered as to which of the seven contracts resulted in losses and which ones resulted in gains or the amounts of such gains and losses. Section 58 (a) requires every individual to make a declaration if his gross income either from wages or from sources other than wages “can reasonably be expected to exceed” the small amounts set out in the statute. It may well be that either before March 2, June 2, or September 2, .1950, 1 or more of the 7 contracts showing a profit may have been completed, in which event it seems petitioner could “reasonably be expected” to receive his 40 per cent, and if such 40 per cent be in excess of the small amounts set out in section 58 (a), petitioner would be required to make a declaration of his estimated tax either on March 15, June 15 or September 15, and if later contracts resulted in losses amendments of a former declaration were provided for by section 58 (d) (2).
Furthermore, based upon his prior gross income in .1948 and 1949 of $22,371.43 and $46,966.69, respectively, together with his long experience in the construction business, petitioner should reasonably have known that he would realize substantial income. Whether petitioner was informed by the company upon completion of a contract that a profit or loss resulted is immaterial. It was petitioner’s responsibility to seek the required information from the company. Had he done so he would have known during the year whether he was earning or losing money and whether it could reasonably be expected that his gross income for the year would exceed the amounts set out in section 58 (a) of the statute. Because petitioner did not feel obligated to secure such information in order to comply with the law clearly cannot now be used as an excuse for his failure to comply. To excuse such conduct would penalize businessmen who conscientiously seek the necessary information to file the required declaration of estimated tax. In any event, petitioner’s contention that he did not know until the end of 1950 whether he had earned any income does not demonstrate “reasonable cause” for failure to file a declaration that is mandatory by law.
Petitioner was no doubt under the impression that if he filed his completed return by January 15 of the succeeding taxable year and paid the tax shown thereon to be due no declaration of estimated tax as such need be filed. This would be true only if the requirements of section 58 (a) were met for the first time after September 1 of the taxable year. See sec. 58 (d) (8) (A). Petitioner has not shown that the requirements of section 58 (a) were not met before September 2 of the taxable year.
We hold that the addition to tax for failure to file a declaration of estimated tax for the year 1950 was correctly determined by respondent. Rene R. Bouche, 18 T. C. 144, taxpayer’s appeal to C. A. 2 dismissed (nol-pros.). Cf. Sidney V. LeVine, 24 T. C. 147, 157; Walter M. Joyce, 25 T. C. 13; Howard M. Fischer, 25 T. C. 102.
Decision will he entered for the respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 T.C. 894, 1956 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-commissioner-tax-1956.