Moyer v. Comm'r

2015 T.C. Memo. 45, 109 T.C.M. 1217, 2015 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 50
United States Tax Court·Decided March 16, 2015·No. Docket No. 13991-12·Unpublished

Opinion

URVE V. MOYER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Moyer v. Comm'r
Docket No. 13991-12
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2015-45; 2015 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 50;
March 16, 2015, Filed

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

*50 Calvin Moyer (specially recognized), for petitioner.
Harry J. Negro, for respondent.
LAUBER, Judge.

LAUBER
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

LAUBER, Judge: With respect to petitioner's Federal income tax for 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined a deficiency and additions to tax under sections 66511 and 6654 in the following amounts:

Additions to tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6651(a)(1)Sec. 6651(a)(2)Sec. 6654
2007$16,644$3,602To be determined$725

*46 Petitioner had not timely filed a Federal income tax return for 2007. Using information from third-party reports, the IRS prepared a substitute for return (SFR) that met the requirements of section 6020(b). The IRS computed petitioner's tax liability using married filing separately status and allowed her the standard deduction and one personal exemption. The IRS sent her a notice of deficiency based on the SFR, determining the deficiency and additions to tax set forth above.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a delinquent return for 2007*51 with her husband, Calvin Moyer, claiming married filing jointly status, certain itemized deductions, and a deduction for a loss reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss. Petitioner paid no tax with her delinquent return. Respondent agrees that petitioner and Calvin Moyer are entitled to married filing jointly status for 2007, and the parties have resolved all issues apart from the amount of the Schedule E loss and the additions to tax. Resolution of the former issue requires that we decide whether expenses allegedly incurred by an S corporation wholly owned *47 by Calvin Moyer were "ordinary and necessary" business expenses under section 162(a) and whether they were adequately substantiated. With minor exceptions, we resolve these issues in favor of respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts were stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this reference. Petitioner resided in Delaware when she petitioned this Court.

The S Corporation Business

Petitioner's husband, Calvin Moyer, was trained as a chemist. In 1968 he joined DuPont, where he worked chiefly in recruiting and human relations. He took early retirement in 1992 and started*52 a company called Strategic Learning Systems, Inc. (SLS), which elected S corporation status for Federal tax purposes. Through SLS Calvin Moyer offered, as an outside contractor, many of the same human-relations services that he had previously performed in-house for DuPont. These included training company managers, helping workers develop "soft-side skills," and assisting laid-off employees in transitioning to new jobs.

Calvin Moyer initially offered these services chiefly by conducting training seminars, usually at the client's place of business. A one-day seminar would typically cost between $8,000 and $10,000. DuPont was SLS' principal client through *48 2003, but DuPont stopped signing up for seminars in 2004. SLS had one or two other clients, but their work began to dry up. By 2006 the SLS business had diminished to the point where it involved little more than ad hoc consulting that Calvin Moyer personally performed. SLS had no other employees.

For 2007 SLS reported gross receipts of $1,289.

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

Moyer v. Comm'r, 2015 T.C. Memo. 45, 109 T.C.M. 1217, 2015 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 50 (tax 2015).

2015 T.C. Memo. 45 (Moyer v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Deputy, Administratrix v. Du Pont
308 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1940)
United States v. Boyle
469 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner
503 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1992)
HIGBEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
116 T.C. No. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
Swain v. Comm'r
118 T.C. No. 22 (U.S. Tax Court, 2002)