Rainbow Tax Serv. v. Comm'r

128 T.C. No. 5, 128 T.C. 42, 2007 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 4
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 8, 2007
DocketNo. 7738-05
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 T.C. No. 5 (Rainbow Tax Serv. 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
Rainbow Tax Serv. v. Comm'r, 128 T.C. No. 5, 128 T.C. 42, 2007 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 4 (tax 2007).

Opinion

Swift, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies of $11,903 and $5,003, respectively, in petitioner’s Federal income taxes for petitioner’s tax years ending June 30, 2002 and 2003.

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.

The issue for decision is whether petitioner’s tax return preparation and bookkeeping services are to be treated as accounting services. If so, petitioner will be treated as a qualified personal service corporation under section 448(d)(2) and will be subject to the flat 35-percent tax rate set forth in section 11(b)(2).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Most of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

At the time the petition was filed, petitioner’s principal place of business was located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

In 1978, Steve Rodgers (Rodgers) incorporated petitioner as a Nevada corporation, and until his death in 2002 Rodgers owned all of petitioner’s stock. Petitioner’s business consisted of providing tax return preparation and bookkeeping services, which services Rodgers and other individuals provided as petitioner’s employees.

Over the years, Rodgers, on petitioner’s behalf, increased the number of petitioner’s clients and the number of employees to perform for petitioner’s clients tax return preparation and bookkeeping services, and eventually petitioner opened two additional offices in the Las Vegas area.

After Rodgers’ death in 2002, Rodgers’ wife, Donna Joyner-Rodgers (Joyner-Rodgers), succeeded Rodgers as petitioner’s president and assumed management of petitioner and of petitioner’s three offices. Also, after Rodgers’ death petitioner’s stock was owned by Rodgers’ estate, and then in 2004, petitioner’s stock was transferred from Rodgers’ estate to J oyner-Rodgers.

In addition to her administrative and managerial responsibilities relating to petitioner, Joyner-Rodgers, as an employee of petitioner, also provides to petitioner’s clients tax return preparation services.

During the years in issue, petitioner’s tax return preparation services generally consisted of the preparation of clients’ Federal and State individual, corporate, partnership, gift, and estate tax returns. Petitioner’s bookkeeping services generally consisted of the preparation, from client records, of profit and loss statements and various other reports and forms relating to client Federal payroll taxes, State unemployment taxes, and sales taxes.

Petitioner is not a public accounting firm, and petitioner’s employees do not perform services that require petitioner’s employees to obtain certified public accountant (C.P.A.) licenses. Rodgers nor Joyner-Rodgers ever held a C.P.A. license.

For the years in issue, petitioner’s employees (including Rodgers and Joyner-Rodgers) spent all of their work-related time performing for petitioner’s clients tax return preparation and bookkeeping services and related administrative and support services. On each of petitioner’s timely filed corporate Federal income tax returns, petitioner’s income tax liability was calculated using the section 11(b)(1) graduated income tax rates applicable to corporations.

On April 14, 2005, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency in which respondent determined that petitioner’s tax return preparation and bookkeeping services constituted accounting services and therefore that petitioner, for the years in issue, should be treated as a qualified personal service corporation subject to the flat 35-percent tax rate set forth in section 11(b)(2). The amounts of the deficiencies herein represent the increase in petitioner’s Federal income taxes as a result of applying the flat 35-percent tax rate.1

OPINION

In general, for Federal income tax purposes, corporations are taxed at graduated income tax rates. Sec. 11(b)(1). So-called qualified personal service corporations as defined in section 448(d)(2), however, are taxed at a flat 35-percent income tax rate. Sec. 11(b)(2).

A corporation is to be treated as a qualified personal service corporation (1) if substantially all of the corporation’s activities involve the performance of services in the fields of “health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, or consulting” (hereafter covered services), sec. 448(d)(2)(A); sec. 1.448-lT(e)(4)(i), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 22768 (June 16, 1987) (the “function test”); and (2) if 95 percent of the corporation’s stock is owned by, among others, individual employees performing covered services for the corporation (or by the estate of a prior employee of the corporation who performed covered services for the corporation), sec. 448(d)(2)(B); sec. 1.448-lT(e)(5)(i), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 22770 (June 16, 1987) (the “ownership test”).

Substantially all of a corporation’s activities will be treated as covered services only if in the aggregate the corporation’s employees spend 95 percent or more of their time in performing covered services. Sec. 1.448- lT(e)(4)(i), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra. In calculating the amount of employee time spent performing covered services, administrative and support services incident to covered services are treated as covered services. Id.

Section 448(d)(2), the regulations thereunder, and court opinions generally do not define accounting services.2 However, in section 1.448-lT(e)(5)(vii), Example l(i), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 22770 (June 16, 1987), the preparation of tax returns and audit and financial statements are treated as accounting services:

X, a corporation, is engaged in the business of providing accounting services to its clients. These services consist of the preparation of audit and financial statements and the preparation of tax returns. For purposes of section 448, such services consist of the performance of services in the field of accounting. * * *

Petitioner concedes that, if tax return preparation and bookkeeping services constitute accounting services, by virtue of Rodgers’ and Rodgers’ estate’s ownership of petitioner’s stock, the above ownership test has been satisfied.

Petitioner, however, argues that, for purposes of section 448(d)(2)(A), tax return preparation and bookkeeping services do not constitute accounting services, that petitioner therefore does not meet the above function test, and that petitioner should not be treated as a qualified personal service corporation.

Petitioner argues that under Nevada law, accounting services can be performed only by C.P.A.S, and that because petitioner is not a C.P.A. firm, does not employ C.P.A.S, and does not perform services which are restricted under Nevada law to C.P.A.S, petitioner should not be treated as performing accounting services.

In essence, petitioner would treat only those services which require a C.P.A. license as accounting services and would treat other tax return preparation and bookkeeping services as nonaccounting services.

We disagree with petitioner’s overly restrictive definition of accounting services.

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

Related

Zia-Ahmadi v. Comm'r
2017 T.C. Summary Opinion 39 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Kraatz & Craig Surveying Inc. v. Commissioner
134 T.C. No. 8 (U.S. Tax Court, 2010)
Grutman-Mazler Eng'g Inc. v. Comm'r
2008 T.C. Memo. 140 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
W.W. Eure, M.D., Inc. v. Comm'r
2007 T.C. Memo. 124 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
Rainbow Tax Service, Inc. v. Commissioner
128 T.C. No. 5 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)
Rainbow Tax Serv. v. Comm'r
128 T.C. No. 5 (U.S. Tax Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 T.C. No. 5, 128 T.C. 42, 2007 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainbow-tax-serv-v-commr-tax-2007.