Hudson v. Commissioner

1996 T.C. Memo. 106, 71 T.C.M. 2337, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 104
United States Tax Court·Decided March 7, 1996·No. Docket No. 4119-94.·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

RICHARD D. HUDSON AND BETTY L. HUDSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Hudson v. Commissioner
Docket No. 4119-94.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1996-106; 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 104; 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2337;
March 7, 1996, Filed

*104 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Philip A. Sallee, for petitioners.
Ronald T. Jordan, for respondent.
LARO, Judge

LARO

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LARO, Judge: This case is before the Court fully stipulated. See Rule 122. Richard D. Hudson and Betty L. Hudson petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of deficiencies in their 1987 and 1988 Federal income taxes and additions thereto under sections 6653(b)(1)(A) and (B)1 (for 1987) and section 6653(b)(1) (for 1988). Respondent reflected this determination in a notice of deficiency issued to Richard D. and Betty L. Hudson on December 8, 1993. The notice of deficiency shows the following deficiencies and additions thereto:

Additions to Tax
Sec.Sec.Sec.
YearDeficiency6653(b)(1)(A)6653(b)(1)(B)6653(b)(1)
1987$ 12,989$ 9,7421--
198819,483----$ 14,612

Following concessions, we must decide:

1. Whether respondent abused her discretion in requiring petitioner's business to use an accrual method of accounting for purchases and sales. We hold she did not.

*105 2. Whether petitioner may compute his adjustment under section 481(a), which results from the change to an accrual method, by reference to the 3-year rule under section 481(b). We hold he may not.

Unless otherwise stated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. We use the term "petitioner" to refer solely to Richard D. Hudson. Betty L. Hudson is a party mainly because she filed joint Federal income tax returns with petitioner during the subject years.

Background

The stipulated facts and exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner and Mrs. Hudson are husband and wife. They resided in Bloomington, Indiana, when they petitioned the Court. They filed 1987 and 1988 Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns, using the status of "Married filing joint return".

During the subject years, petitioner operated a sole proprietorship that sold diamonds and other gemstones at wholesale and retail prices. Petitioner started this business in 1965, and he has always used the cash receipts and disbursements*106 method (cash method). Petitioner did not maintain inventories for purposes of computing his cost of goods sold, but he currently expensed all costs that he paid to purchase the diamonds and other gemstones. Following concessions by the parties, petitioner's gross receipts, cost of goods sold, and gross profit percentage for the subject years were:

19871988
Gross receipts$ 321,596$ 371,994
Cost of goods
sold$ 257,346$ 353,118
Gross profit
percentage

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

Hudson v. Commissioner, 1996 T.C. Memo. 106, 71 T.C.M. 2337, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 104 (tax 1996).

1996 T.C. Memo. 106 (Hudson v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ACM Pshp. v. Commissioner
1997 T.C. Memo. 115 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)