Kim v. Comm'r

2013 T.C. Memo. 5, 105 T.C.M. 1017, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 9, 2013
DocketDocket No. 8409-08
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2013 T.C. Memo. 5 (Kim v. Comm'r) 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
Kim v. Comm'r, 2013 T.C. Memo. 5, 105 T.C.M. 1017, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4 (tax 2013).

Opinion

JOHN CHONG-MAN KIM AND SEUNG HEE KIM, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Kim v. Comm'r
Docket No. 8409-08
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2013-5; 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4; 105 T.C.M. (CCH) 1017;
January 9, 2013, Filed
*4

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

John E. Ellsworth, for petitioners.
H. Barton Thomas, Jr., for respondent.
FOLEY, Judge.

FOLEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: After concessions, the issues for decision, relating to petitioners' 2004 and 2005 Federal income tax returns, are whether petitioners *6 underreported passthrough income attributable to Herberts Drug & Surgical Sales Corp. and are liable for section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties. 1

Background

In 1996 John Chong-Man Kim incorporated, as an S corporation, Herberts Drug & Surgical Sales Corp. (Herberts). Mr. Kim has at all relevant times been the sole shareholder, sole officer, and president of Herberts. Herberts maintained only informal records of its gross receipts (i.e., bank statements) and purchases 2 (i.e., a cash disbursements journal and check stubs) and accepted customer payments in the form of cash, credit cards, and personal checks. Mr. Kim deposited these payments into a designated bank account and routinely discarded *5 cash register records and bank deposit slips.

Petitioners' joint Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Herberts' Forms 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, relating to 2004 and 2005 (years in issue), were filed by Mr. Kim and prepared by Gerald Fox, their accountant. On its 2004 Form 1120S, Herberts reported $4,126,259 of *7 gross receipts, $3,765,590 of purchases, $99,096 of income, and $3,247 of vehicle expenses. On their 2004 Form 1040, petitioners reported $99,096 of passthrough income attributable to Herberts. Herberts, on its 2005 Form 1120S, reported $5,124,080 of gross receipts, $4,719,207 of purchases, and $133,557 of income. On their 2005 Form 1040, petitioners reported $133,557 of passthrough income attributable to Herberts.

In 2007 respondent conducted an audit of the 2004 and 2005 returns. During the audit, respondent's revenue agent performed a bank deposits analysis to reconstruct Herberts' income and compared Herberts' cash disbursements journal with the purchases reported on Herberts' Forms 1120S. On February 29, 2008, respondent *6 sent a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioners. Respondent determined that, on its 2004 and 2005 Forms 1120S, Herberts underreported gross receipts and overstated purchases; and Herberts was not entitled to the vehicle expenses deduction claimed on its 2004 Form 1120S. Respondent further determined that, for 2004 and 2005, respectively, petitioners had $1,248,992 and $1,277,896 of income attributable to their interest in Herberts and were liable for *8 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties relating to both years. 3 On January 8, 2008, petitioners, while residing in New Jersey, filed their petition with the Court.

The parties stipulated the amounts of Herberts' gross receipts and purchases and that in 2004 Herberts distributed $539,757 to Mr. Kim. The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122.

Discussion

Respondent determined that Herberts underreported its income and petitioners, in turn, underreported passthrough income attributable to Herberts. Petitioners, however, assert that respondent determined that the *7 amounts of underreported passthrough income were constructive distributions and contend that they had sufficient basis to shelter any distributions.

Simply put, respondent did not determine that the underreported passthrough income amounts were constructive distributions or that petitioners received taxable distributions. Petitioners' tax liabilities relating to distributions are not at issue. Indeed, respondent acknowledges that petitioners had sufficient basis to shelter the amount distributed in 2004. While basis is taken into account *9 for purposes of determining whether distributions are taxable, it is not taken into account with respect to the amount of Herberts' income that passes through to petitioners. Seesecs. 1366(a), 1367(a), 1368(a)

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

Related

Ward & Ward Company
U.S. Tax Court, 2021
Lateesa Ward
U.S. Tax Court, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 T.C. Memo. 5, 105 T.C.M. 1017, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kim-v-commr-tax-2013.