Morris v. Comm'r
This text of 2009 T.C. Summary Opinion 15 (Morris 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.
Opinion
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
KROUPA,
Respondent determined a $ 1,174 deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2004, and petitioners timely filed a petition with this Court. After concessions, 2 the only issue remaining is whether petitioners may offset their realized long-term capital gains by negative taxable income 3*15 before offsetting such gains by long-term capital loss carryover. We hold they may not.
This case was submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122. The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts, the stipulation of settled issues, and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this reference. Petitioners resided in Tennessee at the time they filed the petition.
Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for 2004 and attached a handwritten letter stating they found the Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, too complicated to complete. Petitioner husband mailed respondent a handwritten computation and a letter after receiving the deficiency notice. Petitioners claimed a $ 23,000 net long-term capital loss in 2002, which petitioners carried over to both 2003 and 2004. The parties disagree about how the long-term capital loss carryover from 2003 to 2004 is calculated.
The parties stipulated that, if petitioners' position is correct, then the amount of long-term capital loss carryover to 2004 is $ 9,629. This would reduce their 2004 net long-term capital gain to zero and result in a $ 651 deficiency for 2004. 4 If we find for respondent, however, the amount *16 of long-term capital loss carryover is $ 5,807, reducing their net long-term capital gain to $ 953 and resulting in a $ 698 deficiency.
We decide whether petitioners may offset their realized long-term capital gains by negative taxable income 5 before offsetting such gains with long-term capital loss carryover. Petitioners contend this method of computation reflects Congress' intent that the use of capital loss carryovers in a bad year should be delayed to offset capital gains in a good year. We disagree with petitioners given the clear language of the applicable statutes.
We begin with the burden of proof. Where, as here, the key facts are fully stipulated and we are faced with a question of law, our holding does not depend on the burden of proof we impose or standard of review we apply. *17 We must reject erroneous views of the law. See
We now turn to the proper method for determining long-term capital loss carryover. Petitioners argue that they should be allowed to deduct negative taxable income from long-term capital gain and preserve long-term capital loss carryover for the following year. They argue that section 1(h)(1) "basically" says the capital gains rules do not apply if the resulting tax would be greater than if all or part of the capital gains had been treated as ordinary income. They further argue that their income tax for 2003 was zero and the only way they could determine whether the tax would be lower is to see if they would pay more or less tax in 2004. We disagree with their interpretation. Instead we hold for respondent because of the clear statutory language governing capital losses.
First and foremost, the capital gains tax rates are limited to certain situations and do not affect the calculation of a capital loss carryover. Sec. 1(h)(1). Petitioners' reliance on this section is misplaced. Further, a specific statute controls *18 over a general statute in a situation where two sections might arguably apply.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2009 T.C. Summary Opinion 15, 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-commr-tax-2009.