Moore v. Commissioner

1983 T.C. Memo. 39, 45 T.C.M. 557, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 743
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moore v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 85 T.C. 72
United States Tax Court·Decided January 24, 1983·No. Docket No. 8729-78·Unpublished

Opinion

JERRY C. MOORE AND BILLIE F. MOORE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Moore v. Commissioner
Docket No. 8729-78
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1983-39; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 743; 45 T.C.M. (CCH) 557; T.C.M. (RIA) 83039;
January 24, 1983.
Alfred Sallinger,John D. Copeland and PauletteMueller, for the petitioners.
Gary A. Benford, for the respondent.

SCOTT

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

SCOTT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in income tax of petitioners, Jerry C. Moore and Billie F. Moore, for the calendar years 1972 and 1973 in the respective amounts of $281,917 and $116,833.

The issues for*745 decision are as follows: (1) whether respondent properly determined under section 446(b)1 that petitioners should use an accrual method of accounting rather than the cash method of accounting to reflect the purchases and sales of cars in their used car business, and (2) assuming that petitioners are required to use an accrual method of accounting, are petitioners entitled to deductions for reasonable additions to a reserve for bad debts under section 166(c). 2

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.

Petitioners, Jerry C. Moore and Billie F. Moore, *746 husband and wife, resided in Dallas, Texas, at the time of the filing of their petition herein. Petitioners filed joint Federal individual income tax returns for the taxable years 1972 and 1973 with the Office of the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas.

Mr. Moore together with Mrs. Moore operates, as a sole proprietorship, a used car sales business in Dallas, Texas, known as ABC Motors. Petitioners have been involved in the operation of ABC Motors continuously since 1968. Up until September 1969, Mr. Moore operated ABC Motors in partnership with another individual.

Mr. Moore, as of the date of the trial, had been involved in the car sales business for approximately 25 years. Prior to operating ABC Motors, Mr. Moore had been employed with other car dealers in various capacities as a salesman, assistant manager and used car manager.

Most of ABC Motors' customers are persons who are in the low income group. Its customers typically would not be able to either qualify for or obtain bank financing. ABC Motors financed virtually all of the purchases of used cars from its lot by its retail customers. ABC Motors' operation is what is commonly known in the car business as*747 a "note car lot."

ABC Motors, in its operations, would often extend credit to persons who would not be extended credit by other "note car dealers" in the Dallas area. In his operation of ABC Motors, Mr. Moore was willing to handle higher risk accounts and to take smaller downpayments than most used car dealers. As a result, the prices at which cars were sold were substantially higher than if the cars had been sold for cash. Mr. Moore usually marked up the fresh cars he purchased to sell for an amount 2-1/2 to 3 times the amount for which he himself had purchased them.

Prior to making a sale to a prospective customer, ABC Motors requires the individual to fill out a credit application. In obtaining the information contained in the application, ABC Motors was primarily interested in ascertaining where the individual might be located in the event he failed to make a payment or if the car had to be repossessed. ABC Motors does not check out a customer's credit rating with the local credit bureau.

The promissory note which a customer executes pursuant to his motor vehicle contract provides for the payment of the balance of the purchase price in installments. Installments on*748 the notes that ABC Motors took generally had to be made weekly, but in some cases, installments were allowed to be made every other week or semimonthly, and in rare cases, installments were allowed to be made monthly. The payment days, as well as the frequency of the installments, were made to coincide with the particular customer's payday. ABC Motors, as a part of its business, also offered a check cashing service. The notes which ABC Motors took back, if paid according to their terms, would usually be paid in six months or less. During the years here in issue, no interest was charged on the balances owed on the notes.

Payment on the notes was secured by the automobile sold. ABC Motors under a motor vehicle contract retained a security interest in the automobile. Under such contract, ABC Motors retained the right to repossess the automobile in the case of a default in payments.

The notes or dealer paper which ABC Motors obtains in the course of its business are not of the quality which a bank would be interested in purchasing, except perhaps for some very nominal amount representing a fraction of the face amount of the notes.

The office staff at ABC Motors devoted the*749 majority of their time to collection work. Of the employees working in its office, only one of them devoted her time to keeping the books and records and doing paperwork. The rest of the office staff were involved in collections or repossessions. If a customer did not make payment of an installment when it was due, especially if the installment was his first, ABC Motors would attempt to contact him within a day or two. If the employee contacting the customer was satisfied with the reason given for missing the payment, the customer might be allowed several days to make the payment. If the employee was not satisfied or was unable to contact the customer, ABC Motors would then seek to repossess the automobile.

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

Moore v. Commissioner, 1983 T.C. Memo. 39, 45 T.C.M. 557, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 743 (tax 1983).

1983 T.C. Memo. 39 (Moore v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spring City Foundry Co. v. Commissioner
292 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Commissioner v. Hansen
360 U.S. 446 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner
439 U.S. 522 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Corn Exchange Bank v. United States
37 F.2d 34 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Boynton v. Pedrick
136 F. Supp. 888 (S.D. New York, 1954)
Iverson v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 786 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
Ezo Products Co. v. Commissioner
37 T.C. 385 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
First Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 474 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Roanoke Vending Exchange, Inc. v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 735 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)
Commercial Solvents Corp. v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 455 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Swartz v. Commissioner
42 T.C. 859 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)
Travis v. Commissioner
47 T.C. 502 (U.S. Tax Court, 1967)