Smith v. Commissioner

1983 T.C. Memo. 472, 46 T.C.M. 1039, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 319
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 78 T.C. 350
United States Tax Court·Decided August 11, 1983·No. Docket No. 1449-79.·Unpublished

Opinion

LYNN L. SMITH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Smith v. Commissioner
Docket No. 1449-79.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1983-472; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 319; 46 T.C.M. (CCH) 1039; T.C.M. (RIA) 83472;
August 11, 1983.
*319

In 1974 and 1975, P was a dealer in used cars, and many of the sales were made on credit. P held the notes and reported the payments thereon as income when he received them. Held, P must report the income from the sale of cars by the accrual method and must report the face amount of the notes as income when received. Held, further, P is entitled to deductions for reasonable additions to a reserve for bad debts. Sec. 166, I.R.C. 1954.

J. Frank Thompson, for the petitioner.
Gary A. Benford, for the respondent.

SIMPSON

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

SIMPSON, Judge: The Commissioner determined the following deficiencies in the petitioner's Federal income taxes:

YearDeficiency
1974$23,254.88
197511,557.27

After concessions by both parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether the petitioner must use the accrual method of accounting to reflect the income from the purchase and sale of cars in his used car business; and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to deductions for reasonable additions to a reserve for bad debts.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and those facts are so found.

The petitioner, Lynn L. Smith, resided in Colleyville, Tex., at *320 the time he filed his petition in this case. He filed his Federal income tax returns for 1974 and 1975 with the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1974 and 1975, the petitioner was a used car dealer. He has operated as a sole proprietorship since 1972 and filed his returns for 1975 and 1973 using the same method of accounting as he used to file his 1974 and 1975 returns.

The petitioner sold cars to individuals some of whom were not good credit risks. As a result, he held the notes of customers who wished to purchase cars on credit and was known in the industry as a "note-toter." In 1974, he sold 358 cars and financed 188 of these sales. The total sales prices for cars sold in 1974, exclusive of interest charges, was $332,605.37. In 1975, the petitioner sold 379 cars and financed 278 of these sales. The total sales prices for cars sold in 1975, exclusive of interest charges, was $446,966.60.

Prior to extending credit to a customer, the petitioner obtained from him an application for credit. The application form provided space for such information as the customer's name and address, the length of time at such address, employer's name, credit references, and the names of two or more *321 relatives or friends. In deciding whether to extend credit to an applicant, the petitioner was concerned primarily with where the applicant lived, where he worked, and who were his friends. Most of the petitioner's customers furnished him with the names of businesses from whom they had received credit. On occasion, the petitioner verified such information, but he never refused a customer because of his failure to pay other obligations.

When the petitioner extended financing to a customer, the customer signed a motor vehicle contract/promissory note. Some of the contracts provided for the payment of interest, and most of the contracts required the customer to make weekly payments on the note. In the event a customer defaulted, the petitioner had a right under the contract to repossess the automobile. When a customer defaulted, it was the petitioner's practice to contact the customer and to attempt to arrange for payment of the note, but if no arrangements could be made, the petitioner hired individuals known in the industry as "repo men," who repossessed the automobile for a fee. The petitioner repossessed 69 cars in 1974 and 107 cars in 1975. After a car was repossessed, the *322 petitioner notified the customer of the repossession and gave him 5 or 10 days to reach an agreement with respect to payment for the car. If no agreement was reached, the petitioner resold the car and made no other attempt to collect the note. In some cases, the petitioner even agreed to sell another car to a customer whose car was repossessed without requiring him to pay the balance outstanding on his note.

The petitioner made no accounting entries to reflect a default on a note and the repossession of a car. The petitioner's business records consisted of only a check register, bank statements, cancelled checks, records of his cash expenditures, and an individual "envelope" for each car held by him. Such envelopes contained spaces for such information as the model number of the car, the purchaser, the date of purchase, the date sold, the cost, the expenses, the selling price, and the profit on the sale. In addition, there was space on the envelope for describing the repairs made on the car.

Notes given for the purchase of used cars, such as those received by the petitioner, typically sold for between 20 and 30 percent of their face value. The petitioner did not attempt to *323 sell any of his notes. However, on one occasion, he attempted to use such notes as collateral at a bank, but the bank refused to accept them.

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

Smith v. Commissioner, 1983 T.C. Memo. 472, 46 T.C.M. 1039, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 319 (tax 1983).

1983 T.C. Memo. 472 (Smith v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spring City Foundry Co. v. Commissioner
292 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Helvering v. Estate of Enright
312 U.S. 636 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Commissioner v. Hansen
360 U.S. 446 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner
439 U.S. 522 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Herberger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
195 F.2d 293 (Ninth Circuit, 1952)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Proctor Shop
82 F.2d 792 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
Shield Co. v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 763 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
Iverson v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 786 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
George L. Castner Co. v. Commissioner
30 T.C. 1061 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Drazen v. Commissioner
34 T.C. 1070 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Handelman v. Commissioner
36 T.C. 560 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
Ezo Products Co. v. Commissioner
37 T.C. 385 (U.S. Tax Court, 1961)
First Sav. & Loan Asso. v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 474 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)