Warrick v. United States

177 F. Supp. 481, 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5691, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2669
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedOctober 8, 1959
DocketCiv. A. No. 17681
StatusPublished

This text of 177 F. Supp. 481 (Warrick v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Warrick v. United States, 177 F. Supp. 481, 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5691, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2669 (E.D. Mich. 1959).

Opinion

LEVIN, District Judge.

This is an action by plaintiffs, Charles F. Warrick and Mabel B. Warrick, his wife, to secure a tax refund for the year 1954. Defendant, United States of America, not only denies plaintiffs’ right to a refund but filed a counterclaim based on a deficiency assessment. The counterclaim is not contested by the plaintiffs.

The questions presented are' whether plaintiff, Charles F. Warrick, hereinafter referred to as the taxpayer, as the sole proprietor of the Charles F. Warrick Company, made a timely election for the year 1954 to have the company taxed as a [482]*482Corporation, as permitted by Sec. 1361 of the Internal Revenue Code of 19541 and whether, even if he did not, the Government is estopped to deny him the benefits of this provision because of its failure to issue regulations prior to February 24,1955, prescribing the manner in which the election was to be made.

On April 15,1955 plaintiffs filed a joint individual income tax return for the taxable year ending December 31, 1954. The income of the Charles F. Warrick Company, a sole proprietorship, was included in this return. In May of 1956 plaintiffs filed an amended joint individual income tax return for the year 1954 from which they excluded the income of the Charles F. Warrick Company and filed a corporate return for the company, and also a claim for refund. The refund claim is based upon the tax savings which would have been achieved by treating the Charles F. War-rick Company as a corporation for tax purposes.

Sec. 1361 permits taxpayers who are sole proprietors of a business enterprise and who otherwise meet its requirements to elect, in. accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, to have the sole proprietorship taxed as a corporation. The election was to be made “not later than 60 days after the close of any taxable year of a proprietorship * * Since thp taxable year of the Charles F. Warrick Company ended December 31, 1954, the election with respect to the Charles F. Warrick Company was required to be made by March 1, 1955.

On February 24, 1955 taxpayer wrote a letter to the District Director of Internal Revenue. The letter reads as follows:

“Under the 1954 Code Section 1361, an unincorporated business can elect to be taxed as a domestic corporation. The election must be made within 60 days after the close of any taxable year and in accordance with prescribed regulations.
“This business is operated as a sole proprietorship and can qualify. It would appear desirable taxwise to make such election. However, regulations have not been issued and the period within which the election must be made ends March 1st.
“We respectfully request that a reasonable extension of time be granted for filing final tax return. In the meantime, the estimated tax payments on 1954 income have been made by the proprietor, Charles F. Warrick, so that the bulk of the tax liability has been taken care of.”

It is the taxpayer’s contention that this letter constituted an election to have the Charles F. Warrick Company taxed as a corporation for the year 1954. I do not so construe his letter. His testimony with respect to the letter lends no support to his position. He stated that:

[483]*483“This was a letter that Mr. Fouser, my associate, wrote, asking for an extension of time due to the fact that we were unable to get any information on the act and were advised that there were pitfalls in it, and knowing it was irrevocable, we hesitated in making an election. ******
“I was seeking information. I knew we had to file to make the election, but the thing that disturbed me was the fact there were pitfalls about which we had no knowledge, and being irrevocable, I was hesitant in making that election.”

Nor do I find any basis for an estoppel. On February 24, 1955, the same day that the taxpayer wrote his letter to the District Director, there was issued Treasury Decision 6124, 1955-1 Cum.Bull. 719, prescribing the manner of making the election under Sec. 1361.2 [484]*484The Treasury Decision did not require that taxpayer make an irrevocable election by March 1, 1955. It merely required taxpayer to file a statement of election by March 1, 1955. If he did so he would have had the additional time provided for by Par. 23(b) (3) within which to decide whether to perfect his election. Though the period between the time the Treasury Decision was issued and the date by which the statement of election was required to be filed was short, taxpayer had sufficient time to file the simple statement that was required.

Moreover, not only did he not file a statement of election by March 1, 1955 but he did not do so when he filed his income tax return on April 15, 1955. It was not until May 10, 1956, more than a year after the Treasury Decision was issued, that he manifested an intent to elect. Even if it be assumed that the Treasury Decision was not timely issued, this delay did not permit the taxpayer to make the election at his own convenience. It was still incumbent upon him to evidence an intent to elect within a reasonable time after the issuance of the Treasury Decision. This he did not do.

It is also contended by taxpayer that the failure of the agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to give him the information he sought by personal inquiries excused him from making a timely election. An estoppel cannot be predicated on the failure of the agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to advise him with respect to the advantage to him of electing corporate as opposed to individual taxation. The desirability of making the election depended upon an evaluation of complex questions of substantive tax law. It was for the taxpayer and not the agents of the Bureau to make this choice.

An order will be entered dismissing the complaint and a judgment will be entered for the Government on its counterclaim.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 F. Supp. 481, 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5691, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warrick-v-united-states-mied-1959.