Highwood Partners, B & A Highwoods Investments, LLC, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner , 133 T.C. No. 1 ( 2009 )

133 T.C. No. 1UNITED STATES TAX COURT
HIGHWOOD PARTNERS, B & A HIGHWOODS INVESTMENTS, LLC, TAX MATTERS
PARTNER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 24463-06. Filed August 13, 2009.
R issued P a notice of final partnership
administrative adjustment (FPAA) after expiration of
the 3-year period of limitations under sec. 6501(a),
I.R.C., with respect to the assessment of income tax of
the partners. The FPAA determined overstatements of
the bases of partnership interests and certain other
assets. R asserts that there was a substantial
omission from gross income because the partnership and
the partners failed to separately reflect the gain and
loss from long and short options as required by sec.
988, I.R.C., and the 6-year period of limitations for a
substantial omission from gross income under sec.
6501(e), I.R.C., applies. P asserts that the
partnership and the partners properly reported the net
loss from the long and short options and no omission
occurred. The parties have filed cross-motions for
summary judgment on the question of the applicability
of sec. 6501(e), I.R.C.
- 2 -
Held: P’s motion for summary judgment will be
denied because the partnership and the partners omitted
gross income by failing to separately compute foreign
currency gain and loss pursuant to sec. 988, I.R.C.,
and the 6-year limitations period under sec. 6501(e),
I.R.C., applies; and R’s FPAA asserts alternative
theories that would make the sec. 6501(e), I.R.C., 6-
year limitations period applicable if sustained.
Held, further, R’s motion for partial summary
judgment will be denied because the Court will not
render an opinion whether sec. 6501(e), I.R.C., would
be applicable under R’s economic substance or sham
argument if that is the only position R is able to
sustain, unless such a determination is necessary to
resolve the case.
David D. Aughtry and William E. Buchanan, for petitioner.
William F. Castor, for respondent.
OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: This case is before the Court on the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.1
Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that
respondent failed to issue the FPAA before the expiration of the
3-year limitations period provided in section 6501(a).
Respondent opposes petitioner’s motion and has filed a cross-
motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the 6-year
limitations period for a substantial omission of gross income in
1
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code (Code).
- 3 -
section 6501(e)(1) applies. The issues for decision are whether
respondent is foreclosed by the explanations in the FPAA from
asserting the 6-year limitations period under section 6501(e)(1)
and the related issue whether the returns filed with respect to
the partners, the partnership, or a related S corporation,
Highwood Investors, Inc. (Highwood Investors), adequately
disclosed the nature and amount of the omitted gross income.
We will deny petitioner’s motion because we hold that the
partners’ returns contained a substantial omission from gross
income within the meaning of section 6501(e)(1) as filed and that
none of the relevant returns adequately disclosed the nature or
amount of the omitted income. Respondent’s partial summary
judgment motion will also be denied without prejudice because
resolution of the issues raised would require a ruling on an
issue that the Court might not otherwise have to reach.
Background
For purposes of the pending motions, we assume the following
facts. The parties treated Highwood Partners (Highwood) as
having a principal place of business in Virginia for purposes of
appellate venue under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648.
The ultimate taxpayers are Michael and Karen Booth Adams,
Richard and Mary Fowlkes, and the Booth and Adams Irrevocable
Family Trust (the trust). On November 12, 1999, following the
- 4 -
advice of the law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist, Mrs. Adams, Mrs.
Fowlkes, and the trust (the partners) each formed a single-member
limited-liability company or L.L.C. (collectively, the LLCs).
The LLCs were disregarded entities for Federal income tax
purposes. On that same date, Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Fowlkes, and the
trust, through their single-member LLCs, formed Highwood and
owned partnership interests of 47.62, 29.76, and 22.62 percent,
respectively.
On November 22, 1999, each of the LLCs entered into foreign
exchange digital option transactions (FXDOTs) with Deutsche Bank
AG New York branch (Deutsche Bank), in which the LLCs purchased a
30-day European-style digital option spread based on the U.S.
dollar/Japanese yen (USD/JPY) exchange rate. The parties to a
European-style option can exercise the option only on its
termination date. A digital option has a predetermined fixed
payout upon the parties’ agreement at the time of the option’s
inception.
The notional principal amounts, the premiums, and the
contingent payments of the FXDOTs varied among the LLCs. Through
their respective LLCs, Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Fowlkes, and the trust
entered into FXDOTs with notional principal amounts of $8
million, $5 million, and $3.8 million, respectively. Through
their respective LLCs, Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Fowlkes, and the trust
paid premiums with respect to the long leg of the FXDOTs of $4
- 5 -
million, $2.5 million, and $1.9 million, respectively, and
received premiums with respect to the short leg of the FXDOTs of
$3,960,000, $2,475,000, and $1,881,000, respectively.
In the long leg of each FXDOT, the LLCs paid an initial
amount in exchange for the right to receive a predetermined,
fixed amount from Deutsche Bank (long option) if the spot rate on
the USD/JPY exchange rate was greater than or equal to ¥107.27 at
10 a.m. New York local time on the termination date. In the
short leg of each FXDOT the LLCs received an initial amount from
Deutsche Bank in exchange for agreeing to pay a specified, fixed
amount (short option) if the spot rate on the USD/JPY exchange
rate was greater than or equal to ¥107.29 at 10 a.m. New York
local time on the termination date. The premiums paid by and to
the LLCs, and the contingent payments to be paid to and by the
LLCs, were all denominated in U.S. dollars. However, whether
payments were required to be made would be determined by
reference to the value of the Japanese yen.
The parties to the FXDOTs confirmed the terms of each FXDOT
by letters dated November 30, 1999, that both parties to each
FXDOT signed. The combined premium on the long component of the
FXDOTs was $8,400,000, and the combined premium on the short
component of the FXDOTs was $8,316,000. The partners, through
their LLCs, paid only the net premium on the FXDOT, the
difference between the premiums on the long and short components.
- 6 -
The partners paid a combined net premium of $84,000. On November
23, 1999, the partners contributed the options, cash, and shares
of Heilig-Meyers Co. (Heilig-Meyers) and Modis Professional
Services, Inc. (Modis) stock to Highwood. In calculating their
contributions for purposes of determining their outside bases in
Highwood, the partners included the long option premiums of
$8,400,000 unreduced by the short option premiums of $8,316,000.
On December 22, 1999, the FXDOTs expired unexercised while
held by Highwood. The next day Mrs. Adams and Mrs. Fowlkes,
through their LLCs, assigned their respective Highwood interests
to a newly incorporated S corporation, Highwood Investors.2 In
determining their outside bases in Highwood, Mrs. Adams and Mrs.
Fowlkes included the premiums on the long options totaling
$6,500,000 unreduced by the premiums on the short options
totaling $6,435,000. Upon the contribution of their partnership
interests to Highwood Investors, Mrs. Adams’ and Mrs. Fowlkes’
outside bases in Highwood carried over to Highwood Investors
pursuant to section 362(a).
On or about December 29, 1999, Highwood distributed cash and
the Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock to Highwood Investors and the
trust in full redemption of their partnership interests.
Pursuant to section 732(b), Highwood Investors and the trust
2
Mrs. Adams and Mrs. Fowlkes owned 61.54045 and 38.45955
percent of Highwood Investors, respectively.
- 7 -
determined their adjusted bases in the distributed property by
reference to their outside bases in Highwood immediately before
the distribution, which they treated as having been increased by
the long option premiums but not reduced by the short option
premiums. Highwood Investors sold the Heilig-Meyers and Modis
stock on December 30, 1999, at a claimed loss of $6,435,466.
This loss resulted in part from the stepped-up bases under
section 732(b) because Highwood did not reduce the partners’
outside bases by the premiums from the short options. The pro
rata shares of the losses on the stock sales, $3,960,415 and
$2,307,690, passed through to Mrs. Adams and Mrs. Fowlkes,
respectively. Likewise, the trust claimed a stepped-up basis in
its shares of the Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock and sold the
stock on December 30, 1999, for a claimed loss of $1,769,353.
On its Form 1065, U.S. Partnership Return of Income, filed
for the taxable year ended December 28, 1999, Highwood reported
contributions of $8,552,011 without disclosing that the
contributions included the long option premiums of $8,400,000
unreduced by the short option premiums of $8,316,000. Highwood
also reported a loss of $84,000 realized upon the expiration of
the FXDOTs as “Other income (loss)”. To determine the $84,000
net loss, Highwood treated the expiration of the long options as
causing the realization of a loss equal to the long option
premiums of $8,400,000 and treated the expiration of the short
- 8 -
options as causing the realization of a gain equal to the
premiums of $8,316,000.3 Highwood attached a statement to its
return describing the $84,000 loss as a section 988 loss.
However, Highwood did not disclose that the net loss resulted
from the expiration of the long and short options and did not
separately report the $8,400,000 loss from the long options and
the $8,316,000 gain from the short options.
Each partner reported a pro rata share of the $84,000 net
loss without disclosing that the loss resulted from the
expiration of the long and short options. The Adamses’ return
reported the loss as a nonpassive loss from a partnership and
included a statement identifying the loss as a section 988 loss
that passed through from an LLC. The Fowlkeses included the loss
on their return without identifying the loss as passing through
from an LLC or as a section 988 loss. The trust reported its
share of the loss as “other income” from an LLC. None of the
partners reported a gain from the expiration of the short
options. It is the reporting of the expiration of the long and
short options that is the subject of the controversy before us.
3
If a call option expires unexercised, the expiration is
treated as a sale or exchange on the expiration date. Sec.
1234(a)(1) and (2). The holder of the option (i.e., Highwood
with respect to the long leg of the FXDOTs) would realize a loss
upon the expiration in the amount of the premium paid for the
option. Rev. Rul. 78-182, 1978-1 C.B. 265. The obligor of the
option (i.e., Highwood with respect to the short leg of the
FXDOTs) would realize a gain upon the expiration. Sec.
1234(b)(1); Rev. Rul. 78-182, supra.
- 9 -
On its 1999 S corporation return, Highwood Investors
reported a short-term capital loss from the sale of the Heilig-
Meyers stock of $2,996,411 using a sale price of $14,737 and a
cost of $3,011,148. Highwood Investors reported the acquisition
and sale dates of the Heilig-Meyers stock as December 17 and 30,
1999, respectively. Highwood Investors reported a long-term
capital loss from the sale of the Modis stock of $3,439,055 using
a sale price of $16,287 and a cost of $3,455,342. Highwood
Investors reported the acquisition and sale dates of the Modis
stock as September 10, 1998, and December 30, 1999, respectively.
On their Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for
1999, the Adamses and the Fowlkeses reported long-term capital
gains on the sale of stock in IXL Enterprises, Inc. (IXL), of
$2,585,924 and $2,307,690, respectively. The Adamses’ and the
Fowlkeses’ returns reported passthrough losses from Highwood
Investors to offset the capital gains from the IXL stock. The
Adamses reported a short-term capital loss of $1,844,005 and a
long-term capital loss of $2,116,410 from Highwood Investors.
The Fowlkeses reported a net short-term capital loss and a net
long-term capital loss from partnerships and other passthrough
entities of $1,152,406 and $1,322,645, respectively.
On its 1999 Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates
and Trusts, the trust reported a long-term capital gain on the
sale of IXL stock of $1,777,494. Likewise, the trust offset its
- 10 -
gain on the sale of the IXL stock with losses from the sale of
the Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock. On its 1999 return, the trust
reported a short-term capital loss of $823,794 from the sale of
the Heilig-Meyers stock using a sale price of $4,131 and a cost
of $827,925. The trust reported the acquisition and sale dates
as December 17 and 30, 1999, respectively. The trust reported a
long-term capital loss of $945,559 from the sale of the Modis
stock using a sales price of $4,509 and a cost of $950,068. The
trust reported the Modis stock as a gift and provided only a sale
date of December 30, 1999, not an acquisition date. On their
1999 returns, the Adamses, the Fowlkeses, and the trust reported
$6,615,451.84, $3,216,290, and $1,777,494 of gross income,
respectively.
Highwood and the partners timely filed their respective
returns for 1999 on or before April 15, 2000. On June 19, 2003,
respondent served a “John Doe” summons on Jenkens & Gilchrist
seeking information about taxpayers who participated in listed
transactions. On May 17, 2004, Jenkens & Gilchrist provided
information in response to the summons, identifying the Adamses,
the Fowlkeses, and the trust as having participated in a listed
transaction. Respondent issued an FPAA to Highwood on August 30,
2006, after the expiration of the 3-year limitations period on
assessment and collection under section 6501(a) with respect to
the partners but within the 6-year limitations period on
- 11 -
assessment and collection under section 6501(e)(1) if that
section applies.4
In the FPAA respondent adjusted the items on Highwood’s
return to zero, including the $84,000 loss reported as other
income, and asserted various penalties.5 Attached to the FPAA was
a document titled “EXHIBIT A - Explanation of Items”. The
explanation of items provided numerous alternative arguments in
support of the adjustments made by the FPAA:
(1) That neither Highwood nor its partners had established
the existence of Highwood as a matter of fact;
(2) that even if Highwood was established as a partnership
in fact, it was formed and availed of solely for purposes of tax
avoidance by artificially overstating its partners’ outside
bases. As a consequence, the partnership and the options should
be disregarded in full and any losses and basis adjustments
resulting from the options should also be disallowed. Further,
the partners should be treated as having engaged directly in the
4
If sec. 6501(e)(1) applies, the limitations period would be
suspended for a period of 151 days beginning on Dec. 18, 2003 (6
months after service of the John Doe summons), until May 17,
2004, when the information was provided. See sec. 7609(e)(2).
The parties agree that, for purposes of the pending motions, if
sec. 6501(e)(1) applies, then the FPAA was issued while the
period for assessing tax against the partners was open and would
suspend that period under sec. 6229(d).
5
The FPAA also adjusted to zero an $80,000 deduction related
to portfolio income, capital contributions, and distributions.
- 12 -
option transactions as though no options were contributed to or
assumed by Highwood;
(3) that Highwood was a sham and availed of in connection
with a transaction inconsistent with the intent of subchapter K
of the Code;
(4) that the short options should have been treated as
liabilities under section 1.752-6, Income Tax Regs., and reduced
the partners’ bases in Highwood accordingly;
(5) that the purchased options claimed to have been
contributed to Highwood and the written options claimed to have
been assumed by Highwood were in substance a single integrated
financial transaction, and, pursuant to section 1.988-2(f),
Income Tax Regs., should be recharacterized as a single
integrated financial transaction to correspond with its
substance. A result of this recharacterization would be that any
basis in Highwood that was derived from the option spreads would
be limited to the net of any premiums paid for the purchased
options and any premiums received for the written options;
(6) that the partners were not entitled to deduct losses
related to Highwood because the partners did not establish that
the partners had any at-risk amounts within the meaning of
section 465 that would allow them a deduction;
(7) that even if the FXDOTs were treated as contributed to
Highwood, the amount contributed, i.e., the premium paid for the
- 13 -
long option, should be reduced by the amount received, i.e., the
premium on the sale of the short option.
The FPAA also explained the disallowance of a claimed
deduction for interest income and explained the reasoning behind
the imposition of alternative penalties under section 6662.
Discussion
Respondent argues that petitioner’s motion should be denied
and respondent’s motion granted because Highwood’s and the
partners’ failure to report the $8,316,000 gain realized on the
expiration of the short options constitutes an omission of gross
income under section 6501(e). Petitioner argues that its motion
should be granted on the ground that neither Highwood nor its
partners omitted any income because the expiration of the long
and short options resulted in an $84,000 net loss. If Highwood
had reported the expiration of the short and long options as
separate taxable events, the options would have resulted in
income of $8,316,000 from the expiration of the short options and
a loss of $8,400,000 from the expiration of the long options.
I. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted where there is no genuine issue of any material fact and
a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a) and
- 14 -
(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992),
affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The moving party bears the
burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material
fact, and factual inferences are drawn in a manner most favorable
to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985).
II. Section 6501 Burden of Proof
The bar of the statute of limitations is an affirmative
defense, and petitioner bears the burden of proof. See Rules 39,
142(a); Hoffman v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140, 146 (2002). We
find that petitioner has established a prima facie case that the
3-year period of limitations has expired. Accordingly, the
burden of going forward shifts to respondent to produce evidence
that there was a greater than 25 percent omission of gross income
on each partner’s or the partnership’s return. See Hoffman v.
Commissioner, supra at 146. If respondent makes this showing,
the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts back to
petitioner to establish that the returns disclosed the omitted
income “in a manner adequate to apprise the Secretary of the
nature and amount of such item.” See sec. 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii);
Hoffman v. Commissioner, supra at 147.
III. Sections 6501 and 6229 in General
Under the general rule set forth in section 6501(a), the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is required to assess tax (or send
- 15 -
a notice of deficiency) within 3 years after a return is filed.
Section 6501(e)(1) provides an exception to the general rule:
the IRS may assess tax within 6 years after a return is filed “If
the taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly
includible therein which is in excess of 25 percent of the amount
of gross income stated in the return”.
For purposes of section 6501, the term “return” means the
return that a taxpayer is required to file and does not include a
return of a person, such as a partnership, from which the
taxpayer has received an item of income, gain, loss, deduction,
or credit. Sec. 6501(a). Section 6229 sets forth special rules
to extend the period of limitations described by section 6501
with respect to partnership items or affected items. Section
6229(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided, the period
for assessing any income tax against a person that is
attributable to a partnership item or an affected item shall not
expire before the date that is 3 years after the later of the
date that the partnership return is filed or the last day for
filing the return. However, section 6229(c)(2) provides that if
any partnership omits from gross income an amount properly
includable therein that is in excess of 25 percent of the amount
of gross income stated in its return, the period described in
section 6229(a) is extended to 6 years.
- 16 -
Section 6229 does not create a completely separate statute
of limitations for assessments attributable to partnership items
but merely supplements section 6501. Bakersfield Energy
Partners, LP v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 207, 211 (2007), affd. 568
F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2009); Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants &
Specialties, L.P. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 533, 545 (2000).
Section 6229 may provide a longer period of limitations than
would otherwise apply under section 6501 if a partnership files
its return after the partners file their returns and will extend
the period of limitations to 6 years if the partnership omits a
substantial amount of income regardless of whether section
6501(e)(1) applies.
In Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants & Specialties, L.P. v.
Commissioner, supra at 534-535, the Court stated:
The Internal Revenue Code prescribes no period
during which TEFRA partnership-level proceedings, which
begin with the mailing of the notice of final
partnership administrative adjustment, must be
commenced. However, if partnership-level proceedings
are commenced after the time for assessing tax against
the partners has expired, the proceedings will be of no
avail because the expiration of the period for
assessing tax against the partners, if properly raised,
will bar any assessments attributable to partnership
items.
Accordingly, while the period for assessing partnership items is
ordinarily governed by each partner’s separate period for
assessment, the Court will not consider adjustments made in an
FPAA if the FPAA has been issued after the time for assessing tax
- 17 -
against all of the partners has expired. Id. at 542. Section
6229(d) provides that if an FPAA is issued with respect to a
taxable year, the period for assessing tax under section 6229(a)
(as modified by other provisions such as section 6229(c)(2)) is
suspended for the period during which an action may be brought
under section 6226 and, if a petition is filed with respect to
the FPAA, until the decision of the court becomes final, plus 1
year thereafter. Accordingly, the issue we must decide is
whether the FPAA was issued while the time for assessing taxes
against any of the partners was still open. See Bakersfield
Energy Partners, LP v. Commissioner, supra at 212.
IV. Analysis
A. Omission From Gross Income Upon the Expiration of the
Short Option
Respondent alleges that the deficiency arises from the
partners’ artificially overstated outside bases in their Highwood
partnership interests which the partners shifted to the Heilig-
Meyers and Modis stock. For purposes of the 6-year period of
limitations, respondent contends that the partners omitted income
arising upon the expiration of the short options, which
constitutes a “substantial omission of gross income” under
section 6501(e)(1). The FPAA did not make an adjustment with
respect to income from the short options. Petitioner contends
that Highwood reported the income from the short options because
it reported the $84,000 net loss on the offsetting options.
- 18 -
Although not based on income from the options, the
deficiency determination is related to the options because the
offsetting options were a crucial component of the partners’
alleged tax-avoidance scheme. The partners contributed the
options along with the Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock to the newly
formed partnership. According to respondent, the partners
claimed artificially inflated outside bases in their Highwood
interests by using the long options to increase their outside
bases and treating the short options as contingent obligations
that did not reduce their outside bases under section 752.
Within a period of less than 2 months, the options expired
unexercised, Highwood redistributed the Heilig-Meyers and Modis
stock, and the partners shifted the artificially inflated outside
bases to the stock. The partners then sold the stock to generate
large capital losses based on the inflated bases. Respondent
alleges that the partners created the partnership and
artificially inflated the bases in the Heilig-Meyers and Modis
stock for the purpose of offsetting significant capital gains
from the partners’ sales of IXL stock.
Section 6501(e)(1) applies when a taxpayer omits from gross
income an “amount properly includible therein”. Section
6501(e)(1) does not define the term “gross income” for nontrade or
nonbusiness sales. Gross income has the same meaning in sections
61 and 6501(a). Hoffman v. Commissioner, supra at 148. Although
- 19 -
the FPAA determined overstated bases for the partnership
interests, neither party contends that Colony v. Commissioner, 357
U.S. 28 (1958), and Bakersfield Energy Partners, L.P. v.
Commissioner, supra, control the outcome of this case. Rather,
the parties focus on whether Highwood and the partners properly
reported the offsetting options as a net loss.
The term “omission” means that a specific receipt or income
item is left out of gross income. Colony v. Commissioner, supra
at 32; see Bakersfield Energy Partners, L.P. v. Commissioner,
supra at 213. The fact that Highwood accurately calculated the
amount of the net loss arising from the offsetting options does
not preclude the application of the 6-year limitations period if
Highwood or the partners were required to compute and report any
gain from the short options separately from any loss from the long
options.
Respondent contends that section 988 and the regulations
thereunder required Highwood and the partners to separately state
the gain upon the expiration of the short options from the loss
upon the expiration of the long options. Section 988 prescribes
special rules for the treatment of gains and losses from
transactions that are denominated in a currency other than the
taxpayer’s functional currency or that are determined by reference
to the value of one or more nonfunctional currencies (foreign
currency gain or loss). Sec. 988(c)(1)(A). A section 988
- 20 -
transaction includes “Entering into or acquiring any forward
contract, futures contract, option, or similar financial
instrument” where the amount that the taxpayer is entitled to
receive or is required to pay is based on nonfunctional currency.
Sec. 988(c); sec. 1.988-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. Because the
payments to be made were determined by reference to a foreign
currency, section 988 applies to Highwood and the partners’
reporting of the long and short options.
B. Definition and Computation of Foreign Currency Gain or
Loss
Section 988(a)(1)(A) requires taxpayers to compute separately
any foreign currency gain or loss attributable to a section 988
transaction and to treat the foreign currency gain or loss as
ordinary income or loss. Foreign currency gain or loss is
generally defined as any gain or loss from a section 988
transaction to the extent the gain or loss does not exceed the
gain or loss realized by reason of changes in exchange rates.
Sec. 988(b)(1) and (2). Only the gain or loss due to exchange
rate fluctuations is generally treated as foreign currency gain or
loss. Taxpayers must separately compute foreign currency gain or
loss from the gain or loss on the underlying substantive
transaction, i.e., the fluctuation in the fair market value of the
underlying property, unless an exception applies.
In general any gain or loss from entering into or acquiring a
forward contract, futures contract, option, or similar financial
- 21 -
instrument is treated as foreign currency gain or loss if the
instrument is denominated in a nonfunctional currency. Sec.
988(b)(3); sec. 1.988-1(a)(2)(iii)(A), Income Tax Regs. The term
“similar financial instrument” includes a notional principal
contract if the payments required to be made or received under the
contract are determined by reference to a nonfunctional currency.
Sec. 1.988-1(a)(2)(iii)(B)(1), Income Tax Regs. A notional
principal contract is a contract that provides for the payment of
amounts by one party to another at specified intervals calculated
by reference to a specified index upon a notional principal amount
in exchange for specified consideration or a promise to pay
similar amounts. Sec. 1.988-1(a)(2)(iii)(B)(2), Income Tax Regs.;
see also sec. 1.446-3(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. The FXDOTs qualify
as section 988 transactions because whether payments had to be
made was determined by reference to a nonfunctional currency, the
Japanese yen.
Section 1.988-2, Income Tax Regs., provides rules for
recognizing and computing foreign currency gain or loss from a
section 988 transaction.6 Section 1.988-2(d), Income Tax Regs.,
provides a computational provision for foreign currency
derivatives including forward contracts, futures contracts, and
option contracts governed by section 988(b)(3). Sec. 1.988-
6
The regulations refer to foreign currency gain or loss as
“exchange gain or loss”.
- 22 -
2(d)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs. Section 1.988-2(d)(4)(i), Income Tax
Regs., provides:
(4) Determination of exchange gain or loss--(i) In
general. Exchange gain or loss with respect to a contract
described in § 1.988-2(d)(1) [i.e., foreign currency forward
contracts, futures contracts, and options] shall be
determined by subtracting the amount paid (or deemed paid),
if any, for or with respect to the contract (including any
amount paid upon termination of the contract) from the amount
received (or deemed received), if any, for or with respect to
the contract (including any amount received upon termination
of the contract). Any gain or loss determined according to
the preceding sentence shall be treated as exchange gain or
loss.
Under the computation provisions of section 1.988-2(d), Income Tax
Regs., foreign currency gain or loss on an option includes both
the gain or loss upon the exercise or expiration of the option and
the premium paid or received on the option. See sec. 1.988-
2(d)(4), Example (3), Income Tax Regs. Section 1.988-2(d), Income
Tax Regs., does not apply to section 988 notional principal
contracts even though they qualify as financial instruments
governed by the section 988(b)(3) definition of foreign currency
gain or loss. Section 1.988-2(e)(1), Income Tax Regs., applies to
section 988 notional principal contracts defined in section 1.988-
1(a)(1)(ii) and (2)(iii), Income Tax Regs. Sec. 1.988-2(d)(1)(i),
Income Tax Regs. In general section 446 and the regulations
thereunder govern the timing and computation of income, deduction,
and loss with respect to a notional principal contract that is a
section 988 transaction. Sec. 1.988-2(e)(1), Income Tax Regs.
However, section 1.988-2(e)(1), Income Tax Regs., does provide
- 23 -
that such income, deduction, or loss shall be treated as exchange
gain or loss.
C. Reporting of a Section 988 Transaction
Section 1.988-1(e), Income Tax Regs., defines foreign
currency gain or loss as the amount of gain or loss realized on a
section 988 transaction as determined by the computational
provisions of section 1.988-2, Income Tax Regs. Section 1.988-
1(e), Income Tax Regs., adds a further requirement that taxpayers
compute foreign currency gain or loss separately for each section
988 transaction and prohibits taxpayers from integrating the
foreign currency gain or loss among section 988 transactions even
where the transactions are economically related. Section 1.988-
1(e), Income Tax Regs., provides:
Except as otherwise provided in these regulations (e.g.
§ 1.988-5), the amount of exchange gain or loss from a
section 988 transaction shall be separately computed for
each section 988 transaction, and such amount shall not
be integrated with gain or loss recognized on another
transaction (whether or not such transaction is
economically related to the section 988 transaction).
* * *
The regulations specifically require taxpayers to separately
compute and report the amount of foreign currency gain or loss
realized on each section 988 transaction. See T.D. 8400, 1992-1
C.B. 101, 102 (amending the regulation to clarify that the foreign
currency gain or loss from a section 988 transaction must be
separately computed for each section 988 transaction). The
regulations prohibit taxpayers from netting foreign currency gains
- 24 -
or losses among section 988 transactions unless an exception
applies.
Respondent argues that Highwood and the partners improperly
netted the foreign currency gain and loss on the offsetting long
and short options. Respondent argues that section 1.988-1(e),
Income Tax Regs., requires Highwood and the partners to separately
report the gain arising upon the expiration of the short options
and to separately report the loss arising upon the expiration of
the long options. Under respondent’s theory, the short leg of the
FXDOT is a section 988 transaction, and the long leg is a separate
section 988 transaction. Respondent asserts that Highwood and the
partners’ failure to separately report the gain from the short
options is an omission from gross income for purposes of section
6501(e).
Petitioner acknowledges that section 1.988-1(e), Income Tax
Regs., provides a general rule for the separate computation of
foreign currency gain and loss for each section 988 transaction
subject to certain enumerated exceptions provided in the
regulations. However, petitioner argues that the application of
section 1.988-1(e), Income Tax Regs., to the FXDOT does not
require the separate reporting of the gain from the short options
and the loss from the long options because each pair of long and
short options in the FXDOT is a single section 988 transaction.
According to petitioner, since each pair is a single section 988
- 25 -
transaction, netting of the gain and loss upon the expiration of
the long and short options is permitted under section 988. In the
alternative, petitioner argues that respondent’s FPAA
determination to recharacterize the substance of the long and
short legs of each FXDOT as a “single integrated financial
transaction” under section 1.988-2(f), Income Tax Regs., is an
exception to the separate reporting requirement of section 1.988-
1(e), Income Tax Regs. We must decide whether the offsetting long
and short options constitute separate section 988 transactions.
Petitioner argues that each FXDOT consisting of an offsetting
pair of long and short options is a single section 988 transaction
because the same parties executed the options on a single contract
on the same date with one set of signatures. In support of this
contention petitioner offered letter agreements executed more than
1 week after the parties entered the FXDOT by telephone that
evidence the terms of a single pair of long and short options.
The postdated letters do not persuade us that the long and short
options are a single contract. Rather, we find that the long and
short options are separate and distinct financial instruments for
purposes of section 988.
Highwood and the partners treated the long and short options
as separate financial instruments with independent tax
significance for purposes of the basis computation of the Highwood
partnership interests. As Highwood and the partners intended for
- 26 -
the long and short options to have separate tax significance,
Highwood and the partners should be held to their treatment of the
long and short options as separate financial instruments for
reporting purposes as required by section 988. The expirations of
the long and short options are separate realization and
recognition events that each require the determination of gain or
loss. That the parties purported to execute the long and short
options on a single contract does not control the determination
under section 988 of whether the options are separate section 988
transactions. Similarly, the fact that the options had the same
trade and termination dates or involved the same currencies is not
determinative. The long and short options were priced separately.
Whether the LLCs or Deutsche Bank was required to make payments to
the other under either the long or the short option would be
determined by reference to the separate contract. For example,
the determination whether the LLCs were required to make payments
to Deutsche Bank under the short option would be determined by
reference to the short option only. The same is true of the long
option. Whether Deutsche Bank would have to make payments to the
LLCs under the long option would be determined solely by reference
to the long option. The short option would not affect any
payments made by Deutsche Bank to the LLCs, and the long option
would not affect any payments made by the LLCs to Deutsche Bank.
The regulations expressly require separate reporting of individual
- 27 -
section 988 transactions even where the transactions are
economically related. Sec. 1.988-1(e), Income Tax Regs.
Pursuant to section 1.988-1(e), Income Tax Regs., Highwood and the
partners were required to compute and report the gain on each
short option separately from the loss on each long option.
Highwood and the partners’ netting of the gain and loss from the
long and short options was improper under section 988. By netting
the gain and loss from the long and short options, Highwood and
the partners omitted a specific income item the Code required them
to report. As discussed above, the long and short options are
separate financial instruments, not two sides of a single
contract. Accordingly, section 1.988-2(d)(4)(i), Income Tax
Regs., does not apply in the instant case.
As an alternative argument, assuming the long and short
components of the FXDOTs constitute separate section 988
transactions, petitioner contends that respondent’s alternative
FPAA determination to recharacterize the long and short options as
“a single integrated financial transaction” under section 1.988-
2(f), Income Tax Regs., renders the long and short options a
single section 988 transaction. As an alternative position in the
FPAA, respondent determined that the long and short options were
in substance a single integrated financial transaction pursuant to
section 1.988-2(f), Income Tax Regs. Section 1.988-2(f), Income
Tax Regs., grants the Commissioner the authority to recharacterize
- 28 -
the form of a section 988 transaction in accordance with its
substance.7 The regulation specifically provides that “In
applying the substance over form principle, separate transactions
may be integrated where appropriate.” Id.Petitioner argues that section 1.988-1(e), Income Tax Regs.,
expressly recognizes that exceptions to the separate reporting
rule exist and that section 1.988-2(f), Income Tax Regs., creates
an exception. Under the single transaction theory, respondent
determined that any outside basis derived from the options is
limited to the net of the premiums paid for the long options and
the premiums received for the short options. This determination
is an alternative means for denying the partners an increase in
their outside bases for the premiums from the long options
unreduced by the premiums from the short options. Petitioner
characterizes this alternative determination as a concession by
respondent. Petitioner contends that netting the gain and loss
from the options is proper under respondent’s single transaction
theory. Petitioner argues that Highwood and the partners realized
a net loss on the single integrated financial transaction and thus
Highwood and the partners could not have omitted any income.
7
Sec. 1.988-1(a)(11), Income Tax Regs., grants the
Commissioner the authority to recharacterize a transaction or a
series of transactions in whole or in part as a sec. 988
transaction if the effect of the transaction or the series of
transactions is to avoid sec. 988.
- 29 -
Respondent’s single integrated financial transaction
determination is not a concession that netting is proper or that
Highwood and the partners did not omit income from the short
options. Rather, it is merely one of several alternative theories
to support respondent’s determination. By relying on one of
respondent’s numerous determinations in the FPAA, petitioner seeks
to obtain integrated treatment of the long and short options for
which it would not otherwise qualify. Section 1.988-2(f), Income
Tax Regs., grants the Commissioner the right to integrate separate
section 988 transactions for the purpose of preventing tax abuse.
Taxpayers are entitled to integrate section 988 hedging
transactions under section 988(d) and section 1.988-5, Income Tax
Regs. Petitioner does not contend that Highwood or the partners
qualify for this limited exception.8
We hold, assuming for purposes of petitioner’s motion the
fact of the legitimacy of the partnership and its transactions,
that section 988 requires the partners to separately compute and
report gain and loss from separate section 988 transactions, that
the long and short options are separate section 988 transactions,
and that Highwood and the partners’ failure to separately compute
8
Sec. 988(d) provides integrated treatment for sec. 988
hedging transactions entered into for the purpose of managing
risk from currency fluctuations with respect to property or
borrowings or obligations held or incurred by the taxpayer. Sec.
988(d)(2)(B) allows taxpayers to identify and integrate
qualifying sec. 988 hedging transactions under a strict set of
identification rules.
- 30 -
and report the gain from the short options is an omission from
gross income under section 6501(e). We hold that Highwood omitted
from gross income gain of $8,316,000 from the expiration of the
short options by netting the gain and loss from the long and short
options. The Adamses, the Fowlkeses, and the trust omitted gain
from the expiration of the short options of $3,960,000,
$2,475,000, and $1,881,000, respectively. These amounts
constitute substantial omissions under section 6501(e). Because
the partners omitted a specific income item the Code required them
to report, petitioner’s motion for summary judgment will be
denied.
D. Respondent’s Determinations in the FPAA
Petitioner points out that the FPAA did not make a
determination with respect to omitted income from the short
options. Petitioner argues that respondent’s determinations in
the FPAA should limit the application of the 6-year period of
limitations. Specifically, petitioner contends that respondent’s
omitted income argument directly contradicts the FPAA
determination that the options should be disregarded in full. In
the FPAA respondent determined that the long and short options
should be disregarded and also disallowed the basis increases
resulting from the contribution of the long options to the
partnership. Petitioner argues that disregarded transactions
produce no omission from gross income at the partnership level.
- 31 -
The issue for purposes of section 6501(e)(1) is whether there
was an omission from gross income. Not all of respondent’s
determinations in the FPAA preclude the Court from considering
whether the partners were required to separately compute and
report the gain and loss from the long and short options under
section 988 on the partnership return or whether the failure to do
so is an omission from gross income under section 6501(e)(1).
Therefore, petitioner’s motion for summary judgment that the 3-
year period of limitations applies must be denied for the reasons
stated above. However, petitioner’s contention concerning the
inconsistency in respondent’s arguments requires us to deny
respondent’s motion as well. Some of the alternative arguments
asserted by respondent serve to keep the 6-year period of
limitations on assessment open. However, it is not clear that the
6-year period would apply were respondent to argue, and convince
this Court, that Highwood was a sham and that the FXDOTs lacked
economic substance. Neither petitioner nor respondent have argued
how the 6-year period of limitations on assessment would apply
were we to ultimately decide this case by disregarding the FXDOTs
as lacking economic substance. Neither party has pointed to any
authority explaining how the 6-year period of limitations is
affected if the reporting of a transaction at the partnership
level is ultimately found to be lacking economic substance. We
are not holding that the 6-year period of limitations would not
- 32 -
apply were we to uphold respondent’s determinations on the theory
that the transaction was a sham, only that we are not deciding
that question in the context of respondent’s motion for summary
judgment.
Because neither party has cited any authority that would
establish how the 6-year period would apply to all of the
alternative arguments in the explanation of adjustments, we choose
not to entertain the question of the proper application of section
6501(e) to each of respondent’s distinct theories. We likewise do
not consider arguments not yet addressed by the parties.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment will
be denied.
E. Adequate Disclosure
Although it was not specifically raised by petitioner in
opposition to respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment, we
consider whether Highwood or the partners adequately disclosed the
nature and amount of the gain from the short options. Section
6501(e)(1)(A)(ii) provides that any amount disclosed “in the
return, or in a statement attached to the return, in a manner
adequate to apprise the Secretary of the nature and amount of such
item” shall not be considered omitted gross income.
Adequate disclosure is a factual question. Whitesell v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 702, 707-708 (1988). Petitioner bears the
burden of proving that the nature and amount of the omitted income
- 33 -
were adequately disclosed. Univ. Country Club, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 64 T.C. 460, 468 (1975). Respondent accepts that
the Court should consider the partners’ individual returns as well
as the returns of the passthrough entities--Highwood and the
LLCs.9 See Hoffman v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 147; Robinson v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 308, 317 (2001); Benson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2006-55, affd. 560 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009).
For a disclosure to be adequate, it “must be sufficiently
detailed to alert the Commissioner and his agents as to the nature
of the transaction so that the decision as to whether to select
the return for audit may be a reasonably informed one.” Estate of
Fry v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1020, 1023 (1987). The disclosure
must be more substantial than providing a clue that would intrigue
the likes of Sherlock Holmes but need not recite every underlying
fact. Quick Trust v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1336, 1347 (1970),
affd. 444 F.2d 90 (8th Cir. 1971). The adequacy of a disclosure
9
Respondent accepts as controlling caselaw applicable to tax
years before the 1997 amendment to sec. 6501(a) that held that
when an individual return contains references to a passthrough
entity, the return of the passthrough entity is also considered
to determine whether there was adequate disclosure of the omitted
gross income. The 1997 amendment to sec. 6501(a) added that “the
term ‘return’ means the return required to be filed by the
taxpayer (and does not include a return of any person from whom
the taxpayer has received an item of income, gain, loss,
deduction, or credit).” Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L.
105-34, sec. 1284, 111 Stat. 1038. The 1997 amendment has been
held not to have changed the law with respect to which returns
are considered for purposes of adequate disclosure. Salman
Ranch, Ltd. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 189 (2007), revd. on
other grounds ____ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir., July 30, 2009).
- 34 -
is judged by a reasonable person standard: whether the omitted
gross income would be apparent from the face of the return to the
“reasonable man”. Univ. Country Club, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra
at 471. The standard for adequate disclosure does not require the
Commissioner to engage in a thorough examination of the return to
ascertain whether there is omitted gross income. A misleading
statement on a return is not sufficient to apprise the
Commissioner of the nature and amount of an omitted item. Estate
of Fry v. Commissioner, supra at 1023; CC&F W. Operations Ltd.
Pship. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-286, affd. 273 F.3d 402(1st Cir. 2001).
Highwood and the partners omitted gross income by their
failure to separately state the gain from the expiration of the
short options as section 988 requires. According to respondent,
the partners engaged in a series of complicated transactions to
artificially inflate their respective bases in their Heilig-Meyers
and Modis stock to generate large noneconomic losses that they
used to offset significant capital gains on the sale of their IXL
stock. Respondent alleges that the partnership was created for
the sole purpose of holding the options and the Heilig-Meyers and
Modis stock so that the partners could claim artificially inflated
bases for the redistributed stock.
The short options were an essential part of the partners’
tax-avoidance scheme. The partners used the short options to
- 35 -
avoid payment of the large premiums on the long options and at the
same time used the premiums from the long options to increase
their outside bases in Highwood to justify Highwood’s reporting
contributions to it of over $8.5 million. However, Highwood did
not disclose that the contributions primarily included the
premiums for the long options or that the partners never paid the
stated premiums for the long options for which they claimed
increased outside bases because the partners paid only the net
premiums from the long and short options.
In an attempt to disguise the purpose of the partnership and
the option transactions, Highwood and the partners reported a net
loss on the offsetting options rather than separately computing
gain and loss for each section 988 transaction as required by
section 988. Highwood and the partners netted the gain and loss
from the long and short options to conceal the fact that the
partners contributed both long and short options to the
partnership and to conceal the fact that Highwood increased the
partners’ outside bases by the premiums on the long options
unreduced by the premiums on the short options. Reporting the
offsetting options as a net section 988 loss is misleading and is
not adequate disclosure of the nature, amount, or existence of the
gain from the short options to apprise respondent of the omitted
gross income. Highwood’s, Highwood’s investors’, and the
partners’ returns all failed to disclose that this loss resulted
- 36 -
from the expiration of the long and short options. There was no
indication on the returns that the partners contributed either
long or short options to Highwood or that the partners determined
their outside bases by reference to the unpaid premiums from the
long options.
Highwood and the partners used this deceptive reporting
method to conceal how the partners calculated their bases for the
Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock. The returns did not disclose that
the partners contributed the Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock to
Highwood or that Highwood redistributed the stock to the partners
less than 2 months later to create a step-up in basis of $8.4
million. None of the returns disclosed that the claimed bases of
the Heilig-Meyers and Modis stock were derived from the long
options.
Highwood’s return failed to mention the contributions of the
short options or the gains realized upon their expiration.
Highwood netted the gains and losses from the offsetting options
to conceal the contributions of the options. A review of
Highwood’s, the Highwood investors’, and the partners’ returns did
not reasonably allow respondent to identify the omitted gains.
Accordingly, the safe harbor for adequate disclosure of omitted
income under section 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii) does not apply.
- 37 -
To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be issued
denying petitioner’s motion
for summary judgment and
denying respondent’s cross-
motion for partial summary
judgment.