Ehlen v. United States

323 F.2d 535, 163 Ct. Cl. 35
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 11, 1963
DocketNo. 248-60
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 323 F.2d 535 (Ehlen v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ehlen v. United States, 323 F.2d 535, 163 Ct. Cl. 35 (cc 1963).

Opinion

Laramore, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for the recovery of Federal income taxes, plus interest thereon, alleged to have been illegally collected from plaintiffs by the defendant in the amount of $14,226.81 for the calendar year 1955, and in the amount of $24,124.08 for the calendar year 1956.

Taxpayers, husband and wife, residents of Phoenix, Arizona, are the sole proprietors of a wholesale plumbing and heating supply business located in Phoenix, Arizona, and known as “Phoenix Pipe and Supply Co.”. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ehlen have been active in the management and affairs of the company since its inception. Mr. Ehlen managed the purchasing and selling and Mrs. Ehlen managed the finances and accounting, including the billing and collection of accounts receivable.

Phoenix Pipe and Supply Co. engages in the selling of plumbing and heating materials and equipment at wholesale, and the majority of its customers are plumbing and heating [37]*37contractors. It also sells to commercial buildings and public institutions. During the years in question, approximately 95 percent of gross sales made by the business were charge sales or sales made on credit terms.

From the inception of the business in 1938 taxpayers have kept the company’s books and records on the accrual basis of accounting, have used a calendar year, and have employed the reserve method of accounting for bad debts. Such reserve method is authorized for tax purposes by section 166 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C. 1954) § 166(c) (1958 Ed.), which reads as follows:

(c) Reserve for had debts. — In lieu of any deduction under subsection (a) there shall be allowed (in the discretion of the Secretary or his delegate) a deduction for a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts.

From 1938 through 1951, Mrs. Ehlen estimated the amount of the beginning reserve for bad debts by means of analyzing all the outstanding accounts receivable. She then added an amount to the reserve balance sufficient to offset the amount of existing accounts she thought would be uncollectible. By the end of 1951, in using the aforementioned method, the business had developed a reserve balance of $39,187.88 on its books.

During 1952, taxpayers’ income tax returns were audited for the taxable years 1949 and 1950, and Internal Eevenue Agent E. J. Harén determined that the aforesaid 1951 reserve balance was excessive. Agent Harén conferred with Mrs. Ehlen and her accountant who prepared plaintiffs’ tax returns. It was agreed that the reserve balance of $39,187.88 should be reduced by $14,187.88 to $25,000 and that for the time being the future reserve balance should be computed at two and one-half percent of charge sales. The decrease in the reserve was added to income reportable by taxpayers, one-half in 1949 and one-half in 1950, and the additional taxes necessitated by this increase in income were paid by plaintiffs.

After December 31,1951, taxpayers maintained a reserve balance equal to two and one-half percent of charge sales or $25,000, whichever was higher. Under this formula the reserve for bad debts increased from $25,000 on December [38]*3831,1951, to $31,869.57 on December 31,1956, and to $44,489.61 on December 31,1959.

During 1955 and 1956, the years in issue, taxpayers claimed bad debt deductions of $15,340.94 and $27,869.41, respectively, as additions to the company’s reserve for bad debts. These amounts represented for each year the total of actual bad debt write-offs, minus previous write-offs recovered, plus an amount necessary to bring the reserve balance to two and one-half percent of charge sales for the year.

During 1958, the aforesaid income tax returns were audited by Internal Revenue Agent John J. Yogt, who proposed disallowing all of taxpayers’ bad debt deductions for 1955 and all but $163.31 for 1956. The reasons for Agent Yogt’s proposals were stated by him as follows:

The taxpayers have adopted the reserve method of treating bad debts and in accordance with Section 166-6 [sic] are entitled to a reasonable addition to the reserve for bad debts. A reasonable addition has been computed on past experience in accordance with the formula set forth in the Black Motor Co., Inc. Case, 41 B.T.A. 300. Rapid collection of a substantial percentage of bad debts indicates that some accounts are being written off too rapidly. * * *

The plaintiffs had calculated their bad debt deduction of $15,340.94 for 1955 in the following manner: First they determined that $16,203.74 of accounts receivable were un-collectible and should be written off in 1955. This amount, however, was reduced by $5,551.22 which represented receivables written off in previous years but which were recovered in 1955. Plaintiffs then determined that the 1955 ending reserve balance for bad debts should be $30,739.56 which equaled two and one-half percent of 1955 charge sales and which percentage had been suggested by Agent Harén in 1952 as a method of computing the reserve. Their bad debt deduction of $15,340.94 was then arrived at by deducting their net accounts receivable write-offs from their ending 1954 reserve balance of $26,051.14 and then computing the amount needed to be added to the reserve to bring it up to $30,739.56.1

[39]*39In his 1958 audit, Revenue Agent Vogt concluded that the plaintiffs only suffered $6,490.95 worth of uncollectible accounts in 1955, and he reduced this amount by plaintiffs’ recoveries of $5,551.22 to arrive at a net bad debt write-off of $939.76 for 1955. He then used the Black Motor Co. formula and computed the ratio of plaintiffs’ net bad debts for the 5-year period, 1951 to 1956, to plaintiffs’ charge sales for the same period.2 He applied this ratio of .0010278 to plaintiffs’ 1955 charge sales, which resulted in the sum of $1,263.76. This was thus an averaged amount which based on plaintiffs’ past five years’ experience could be expected to be suffered as bad debts in the next year. For additional protection, Agent Vogt added to this figure the net bad debts he had concluded that plaintiffs suffered in 1955, $939.76, and arrived at the sum of $2,203.52, which was thus the ending reserve balance Vogt considered adequate for 1955. As plaintiffs already had a reserve large enough to absorb its accounts receivable write-offs in 1955 and still retain a balance greatly in excess of $2,203.52 at the end of 1955, Vogt disallowed plaintiffs’ bad debt deductions for 1955.3

In 1956 plaintiffs had written off uncollectible accounts receivable in the amount of $33,823.20 which, with recoveries, amounted to a net write-off of $26,739.40. They then determined that they were entitled to an ending reserve balance of $31,869.57 and, therefore, reported a net bad debt deduction of $27,869.41. Agent Vogt, however, found that plaintiffs only suffered uncollectible accounts receivable in the amount of $22,260.42 in 1956 which, with recoveries, amounted to a net loss of $18,286.65. Using the Black Motor Co. formula, Agent Vogt then determined that plaintiffs were entitled to an ending reserve balance of $24,010.93 for 1956. He allowed them a bad debt deduction of $163.31 [40]*40for 1956.

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

Related

Jostens, Inc. v. Commissioner
1989 T.C. Memo. 656 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Beneficial Corp. v. United States
9 Cl. Ct. 119 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Smith v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 472 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner
439 U.S. 522 (Supreme Court, 1979)
James A. Messer Co. v. Commissioner
57 T.C. 848 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Zimco Electric Supply Co. v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 215 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Commercial Capital Corp. v. Commissioner
1968 T.C. Memo. 186 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc. v. United States
249 F. Supp. 425 (S.D. California, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
323 F.2d 535, 163 Ct. Cl. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehlen-v-united-states-cc-1963.