Tri-City Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Commissioner

61 T.C. No. 56, 61 T.C. 508, 1974 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 165
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 28, 1974
DocketDocket No. 7596-72
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 61 T.C. No. 56 (Tri-City Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. 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
Tri-City Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. No. 56, 61 T.C. 508, 1974 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 165 (tax 1974).

Opinion

OPINION

Featherston, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for its fiscal year ended March 31, 1969, in the amount of $5,469.08. The issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable under section 47 (a) (1) 1 for an investment credit “recapture tax” as a result of its election under section 1372 to become an electing small business corporation commencing April 1,1969.

Petitioner is a Texas corporation with its principal office in Stanton, Tex. It filed its income tax return for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969, with the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Tex.

The facts, all stipulated, show that in taxable years prior to the one ended March 31,1969, petitioner claimed and was allowed investment credits under section 38 in the amount of $4,246.42. For the taxable year ended March 31, 1969, petitioner claimed an investment credit of $1,222.66. For its next fiscal year, commencing April 1,1969, petitioner and its shareholders made a timely election under section 1372 (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the subchapter S election) for petitioner to become an electing small business corporation as defined in section 1371 (b).

In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the investment credit of $1,222.66 claimed for the taxable year ended March 31,1969, and determined that petitioner was liable for a recapture tax with respect to the investment credits totaling $4,246.42 taken for its prior taxable years. The parties agree that if the subchapter S election had not been made, petitioner would bave been entitled to the investment credit of $1,222.66 claimed for the taxable year ended March 31,1969, and would not have been liable for the recapture tax with respect to the investment credits taken in prior taxable years ($4,246.42).

To support his determination in the notice of deficiency, respondent cites section 1.47-4(b), Income Tax Regs., which is in pertinent part as follows:

(b) Election of a small business corporation under section 1312 — (1) General rule. If a corporation makes a valid election under section 1372 to be an electing small business corporation (as defined in section 1371(b)), then on tbe last day of tbe taxable year immediately preceding tbe first taxable year for wbieb sucb election is effective, any section 38 property tbe basis (or cost) of wbieb was taken into account in computing tbe corporation’s qualified investment in taxable years prior to tbe first taxable year for wbieb tbe election is effective (and wbieb has not been disposed of or otherwise ceased to be section 38 property with respect to tbe corporation prior to sucb last day) shall be considered as having ceased to be section 38 property with respect to sucb corporation and § 1.47-1 shall apply [i.e., tbe “recapture tax,” described below, will be incurred]. * ⅜ ⅜

The regulation further provides, however, that the recapture tax will not become due as a result of a subchapter S election if the corporation aifd each of its shareholders execute a prescribed agreement. Under that agreement the corporation and its shareholders, in general terms, agree to pay the recapture tax if the property prematurely loses its section 38 property character with respect to the corporation in any taxable year for which the subchapter S election is effective.

The parties agree that neither petitioner nor its shareholders have executed the agreement provided in the foregoing regulation. Further, they have stipulated that “The only issue before this court in this case is the validity of Treas. Reg. § 1.47-4 (b) as such would cause §38 property to be considered as having ceased to be § 38 property with respect to the petitioner.” Petitioner does not object to the terms of the agreement prescribed by the regulation. Rather, petitioner contends there is no statutory basis for imposing the recapture tax in its fiscal year ended March 31,1969, merely because a subchapter S election was made.

We hold the regulation is valid.

The disputed regulation, section 1.47-4 (b), reflects an effort to mesh two separate sets of Code provisions with distinctive policy purposes. One set, the investment credit provisions of sections 38 and 46 through 50, provides for a direct credit against the income tax for a percentage of the taxpayer’s basis in or cost of certain qualified depreciable property, known as “section 38 property,” purchased and placed in service during the taxable year. These provisions were enacted “to stimulate the economy and improve the balance of payments deficit by promoting investment within the United States in newly acquired productive facilities.” Charbonnet v. United States, 455 F. 2d 1195, 1197 (C.A. 5, 1972); S. Rept. No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), 1962-3 C.B. 717; H. Rept. No. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), 1962-3 C.B. 411-413; Conf. Rept. No. 2508, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), 1962-3 C.B. 1142.

The other set of Code provisions involved in the disputed regulation, the small business corporation or “subchapter S” provisions contained in sections 1371 through 1379, permits certain small business corporations to elect to be free of most Federal income taxes. The objective of these provisions is to permit “businesses to select the form of business organization desired, without the necessity of taking into account major differences in tax consequences.” 'S. Eept. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958), 1958-3 C.B. 1008.

Under section 46, as it stood during the period in controversy, the amount of the section 38 tax credit for a taxable year is 7 percent of the “qualified investment” in that year (the credit year). The term “qualified investment,” limited to depreciable property placed in service by the taxpayer, is defined with reference to the useful life of the property. The percentage of the basis of new “section 38 property” ahd the cost of used “section 38 property” to be taken into account in computing the credit ranges from 33⅜ percent to 100 percent, depending upon the number of years of estimated useful life of the property. No credit is allowable for property having a useful life of less than 4 years.

The allowance of the tax credit, however, is not absolute. Where a credit has been allowed with reference to property that is “disposed of, or otherwise ceases to be section 38 property with respect to the taxpayer” in a taxable year ending before the expiration of the estimated useful life used in computing the credit, section 47(a)(1)2 imposes a recapture tax. The income tax for such taxable year (the “recapture year”) is increased by a sum equal to the tax credit attributable to the unexpired portion of the estimated useful life of the property. Significantly, the tax for the credit year, the year in which the investment credit was originally taken, is not increased. Eather, the reduction in the investment credit is added to the income tax for the recapture year, the year in which the disposition or other cessation of section 38 property status occurs. See sec. 1.47-1 (a) (1), Income Tax Eegs.

Although section 47(a) (1) is not as clear as it might be, we think it may reasonably be interpreted to mean that a subchapter S election causes a corporation’s property for which an investment credit has been allowed to cease to be section 38 property “with respect to the taxpayer” (i.e., the electing corporation).

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

Related

Recreation Invest., Inc. v. Commissioner
1982 T.C. Memo. 3 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
V. E. Wagner Well Service, Inc. v. Commissioner
1981 T.C. Memo. 391 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Brown v. Commissioner
75 T.C. 172 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Bell Fibre Products Corp. v. Commissioner
65 T.C. 753 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Barlow v. Commissioner
1975 T.C. Memo. 316 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
Tri-City Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Commissioner
61 T.C. No. 56 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 T.C. No. 56, 61 T.C. 508, 1974 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-city-dr-pepper-bottling-co-v-commissioner-tax-1974.