Rainbow Tax Service, Inc. v. Commissioner

128 T.C. No. 5
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 8, 2007
Docket7738-05
StatusUnknown

This text of 128 T.C. No. 5 (Rainbow Tax Service, Inc. v. Commissioner) 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 Service, Inc. v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. No. 5 (tax 2007).

Opinion

128 T.C. No. 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

RAINBOW TAX SERVICE, INC., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 7738-05. Filed March 8, 2007.

Petitioner employed individuals to provide tax return preparation and bookkeeping services. Petitioner calculated its tax liability for petitioner’s tax years ending June 30, 2002 and 2003, using the graduated corporate income tax rates set forth in sec. 11(b)(1), I.R.C.

Held: Petitioner’s tax return preparation and bookkeeping services constitute accounting services for purposes of sec. 448(d)(2), I.R.C., and petitioner is therefore subject to the sec. 11(b)(2), I.R.C., flat 35-percent tax rate applicable to qualified personal service corporations.

Donna Joyner-Rodgers (an officer), for petitioner.

Derek W. Kaczmarek, for respondent. - 2 - 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 - 3 - 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

Joyner-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.) - 4 - licenses. Neither Rodgers nor Joyner-Rodgers ever held C.P.A.

licenses.

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

1 For the years in issue, the flat 35-percent tax rate set forth in sec. 11(b)(2) equals the highest marginal corporate tax rate set forth in sec. 11(b)(1). - 5 - 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. 1.448-1T(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. 1.448-1T(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 - 6 - performing covered services. Sec. 1.448-1T(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 1.448-1T(e)(5)(vii), Example 1(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.

2 In Ron Lykins, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

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

Related

Ron Lykins, Inc. v. Comm'r
2006 T.C. Memo. 35 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)
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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainbow-tax-service-inc-v-commissioner-tax-2007.