Estate of Conviser v. Commissioner

U.S. Tax Court

Estate of Conviser v. Commissioner

2001 T.C. Memo. 54, 81 T.C.M. 1258, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64

CourtUnited States Tax Court

DecidedMarch 6, 2001

DocketNo. 17468-97

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2001 T.C. Memo. 54 (Estate of Conviser 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

Estate of Conviser v. Commissioner, 2001 T.C. Memo. 54, 81 T.C.M. 1258, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64 (tax 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ESTATE OF MICHAEL A. CONVISER, DECEASED, BARBARA L. CONVISER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND BARBARA L. CONVISER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Estate of Conviser v. Commissioner

No. 17468-97

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 2001-54; 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64; 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1258; T.C.M. (RIA) 54265;

March 6, 2001, Filed

*64 An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered for petitioners.

Robert A. Wherry, Jr., for petitioners.

Robert A. Varra, for respondent.

Colvin, John O.

COLVIN

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLVIN, JUDGE: The case is before the Court on petitioners' motion to reconsider our prior opinion in this case, . The sole issue for decision in that opinion was whether discharge of indebtedness income from an S corporation increases petitioners' basis in that corporation. We held that it does not, following , affd. .

BACKGROUND

Petitioners were shareholders in Mikama, Inc. (Mikama), an S corporation, from 1988 to 1995. From 1987 to 1995, Mikama was a general partner with a 10-percent interest in a limited partnership known as Dove Canyon Co. (Dove Canyon). Dove Canyon realized $ 20,345,080 in discharge of indebtedness income in 1992 and $ 11,887,728 in 1993. The parties agree that, if petitioners may increase their basis in Mikama by the discharge of indebtedness income, no deficiencies in*65 income tax are due from petitioners for 1993, 1994, and 1995.

DISCUSSION

In , the Supreme Court held that a shareholder of an insolvent S corporation may increase his or her basis by his or her pro rata share of discharge of indebtedness income to the S corporation, contrary to our holding in The parties agree that Gitlitz controls here.

Accordingly, petitioners' motion for reconsideration will be granted, and petitioners may increase their basis in Mikama by their share of the Dove Canyon discharge of indebtedness income.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered for petitioners.

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

ESTATE OF MICHAEL A. CONVISER, DECEASED, BARBARA L. CONVISER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND BARBARA L. CONVISER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Estate of Conviser v. Commissioner

No. 17468-97

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 2001-54; 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64; 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1258; T.C.M. (RIA) 54265;

March 6, 2001, Filed

*64 An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered for petitioners.

Robert A. Wherry, Jr., for petitioners.

Robert A. Varra, for respondent.

Colvin, John O.

COLVIN

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLVIN, JUDGE: The case is before the Court on petitioners' motion to reconsider our prior opinion in this case, . The sole issue for decision in that opinion was whether discharge of indebtedness income from an S corporation increases petitioners' basis in that corporation. We held that it does not, following , affd. .

BACKGROUND

Petitioners were shareholders in Mikama, Inc. (Mikama), an S corporation, from 1988 to 1995. From 1987 to 1995, Mikama was a general partner with a 10-percent interest in a limited partnership known as Dove Canyon Co. (Dove Canyon). Dove Canyon realized $ 20,345,080 in discharge of indebtedness income in 1992 and $ 11,887,728 in 1993. The parties agree that, if petitioners may increase their basis in Mikama by the discharge of indebtedness income, no deficiencies in*65 income tax are due from petitioners for 1993, 1994, and 1995.

DISCUSSION

In , the Supreme Court held that a shareholder of an insolvent S corporation may increase his or her basis by his or her pro rata share of discharge of indebtedness income to the S corporation, contrary to our holding in The parties agree that Gitlitz controls here.

Accordingly, petitioners' motion for reconsideration will be granted, and petitioners may increase their basis in Mikama by their share of the Dove Canyon discharge of indebtedness income.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order will be issued, and decision will be entered for petitioners.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 T.C. Memo. 54, 81 T.C.M. 1258, 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-conviser-v-commissioner-tax-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack