Scott Electric Co. v. Commonwealth

692 A.2d 289, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 143, 1997 WL 154749
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 4, 1997
DocketNo. 153 F.R. 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 692 A.2d 289 (Scott Electric Co. v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scott Electric Co. v. Commonwealth, 692 A.2d 289, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 143, 1997 WL 154749 (Pa. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

JIULIANTE, Senior Judge.

Scott Electric Company (Scott) petitions for review of the February 23, 1993 order of the Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue (Board), which denied Scott a refund request for taxes paid on the value of its capital stock. The issue before us is whether an S corporation may assume the tax liability of its shareholders and then deduct that as an expense in calculating its annual net income for capital stock purposes. We conclude that it may not and, therefore, affirm.

Scott Electric is a Pennsylvania corporation with a fiscal year beginning September 1 and ending August 31 of the following calendar year. On November 12, 1986, Scott’s Board of Directors, in agreement with Scott Electric and its shareholder, resolved to elect S Corporation status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Commonwealth Department of Revenue (Department). In return for the shareholder’s and Scott’s consent, the Board of Directors agreed to assume the shareholder’s federal and state tax liability on S Corporation profits. These elections were accepted by the IRS and the Department beginning with the 1986 tax year.

On February 4, 1988, Scott’s outside accounting firm issued Scott’s non-tax financial statements for 1986. This report showed an income tax expense of $1,355,000.00 and net earnings after taxes of $1,545,917.00. The income tax expense of $1,355,000.00 was the expected liability for income tax of the shareholder, which the corporation agreed to assume by the November 12, 1986 agreement. Scott paid the income tax liabilities on its non-tax financial statements for 1986 directly to the IRS and the Commonwealth.

On May 10,1988, Scott filed its Pennsylvania corporate tax report for 1986. Scott reported book income as $1,545,917.00, which resulted in an average net income of $646,-149.00, a capital stock value of $5,830,863.00, and a capital stock tax of $57,809.00. In settling the stock tax segment of the return, the Department determined book income for 1986 was $2,791,072.00. Therefore, the average net income rose to $905,108.00, the capital stock rose to $7,141,553.00, and the capital stock tax rose to $70,916.00. The settlement sheet indicated that the deduction of $1,355,-000.00 in taxes assumed by Scott was disallowed.

Scott paid the 1986 settled capital stock tax liability of $70,916.00 and filed a petition for a refund with the Board. By its decision of February 23, 1993, the Board denied the refund request.1 This appeal followed.

[291]*291The issue raised on appeal is whether Scott Electric calculated income per books for 1986 according to general accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and if so, whether the Tax Reform Code of 1971 (Tax Reform Code)2 or Department of Revenue regulations prohibit the deduction of an expense which is authorized by GAAP. On appeal, this Court is entitled to the broadest scope of review when considering the propriety of an order of the Board of Finance and Revenue. Although the Court hears these cases under its appellate jurisdiction, the Court functions essentially as a trial court. Norwin School District v. Cortazzo, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 432, 625 A.2d 183 (1993).

Under Pennsylvania tax law, domestic corporations are required to pay tax on the value of their capital stock. It is a tax on the assets of the corporation, not a tax on the income of the corporation. Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Market Street Subway-Elevated Railway Co., 408 Pa. 357, 184 A.2d 483 (1962); 72 P.S. § 7601, et seq. Section 601(a) of the Tax Reform Code sets forth the method of determining the capital stock value. The formula for calculating capital stock value refers to the use of “average net income” which is defined as the “net income or loss for a corporation’s current and preceding four years.” 72 P.S. § 7601(a). Net income refers to “the amount set forth as income per books on the income tax return filed by the entity with the Federal government.” 72 P.S. § 7601(a). The term “income per books” is not defined by the statute.

Regulation 61 Pa.Code § 155.26(g) addresses calculation of average net income and corporations electing S corporation treatment. Section 155.26(g) states:

No adjustment to net income or loss may be made for Federal income tax which would have been paid by a corporation electing S Corporation treatment under Section 1361 of the IRC (26 U.S.C.A. § 1361) or for Commonwealth Corporate Net Income Tax which would have been paid by a corporation electing Pennsylvania S corporation treatment under article 3 of the TRC (72 P.S. §§ 7301-7361), or for Commonwealth personal income tax paid by the shareholders of the corporation.

61 Pa.Code § 155.26(g).

Scott contends that in arriving at its “income per books” it should be allowed to deduct the amount of taxes it paid on behalf of the shareholder pursuant to the November 12, 1996 agreement. Scott argues such a deduction is allowable under GAAP and does not conflict with any provisions of the Tax Reform Code or Department regulations. Conversely, the Board held that the adjustment to book income was specifically prohibited by 61 Pa.Code § 155.26(g). We find that although the deduction sought may be an accepted accounting principle, it is specifically prohibited by 61 Pa.Code § 155.26(g).

We agree with Scott that the first two provisions of section 155.26(g) apply to hypothetical taxes which would be assessed against a corporation had the corporation not elected S Corporation status. We disagree, however, with Scott’s argument that section 155.26(g) is inapplicable because the tax in question was actually paid and was not hypothetical.

Whether or not the tax was actually paid is of no concern because the tax assessed was not against the corporation, but rather, was assessed against the shareholder. Section 155.26(g) specifically refers to taxes which would have been assessed against the corporation had it not elected S Corporation status. 61 Pa.Code § 155.26(g). In Tool Sales and Service Co., Inc., v. Commonwealth, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 389, 613 A.2d 143 (1992), aff'd, 536 Pa. 10, 637 A.2d 607 (1993) (Tool Sales I), we held that “net income per books” as used in calculating tax liability on capital stock value for S corporations did not permit a corporation to deduct hypothetical federal income tax liability. Id. The deductions under scrutiny all referred to tax assessments which would have been made against [292]*292the corporation. Id. Thus, Scott’s reliance on actual payment is misplaced in that regard.

We find the third provision of section 155.26(g) to be controlling. Section 155.26(g) does not allow adjustments to income for Commonwealth personal income tax paid by the shareholders of the corporations. 61 Pa. Code § 155.26(g). There is no dispute that the November 12, 1986 agreement between Scott and its shareholder has no legally binding effect on either the IRS or the Department of Revenue. The shareholder remains liable to both entities for payment of any taxes due. 26 U.S.C.

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

Related

R.S. Leventhal v. Com Com. v. R.S. Leventhal
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
J. Thompson v. Com Com. v. J. Thompson
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
A. Sharpe v. Com Com. v. A. Sharpe
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
R.J. Marshall, Jr. v. Com Com. v. R.J. Marshall, Jr.
197 A.3d 294 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
C.S. & C.L. Andrews v. Com Com. v. C.S. & C.L. Andrews
196 A.3d 1090 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Jerry's Bar, Inc. v. Commonwealth
172 A.3d 1196 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Saturday Family LP v. Com. Techspec Inc. v. Com.
148 A.3d 931 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Southern Pines Trucking v. Commonwealth
42 A.3d 1222 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Marshall v. Commonwealth
41 A.3d 67 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Delgaizo v. Commonwealth
8 A.3d 429 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)
Shawnee Development, Inc. v. Commonwealth
799 A.2d 882 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Adelphia House Partnership v. Commonwealth
709 A.2d 967 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
Scott Electric Co. v. Commonwealth
704 A.2d 205 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
692 A.2d 289, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 143, 1997 WL 154749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-electric-co-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1997.