DocketNumber: Docket Nos. 28666-08, 28667-08, 28673-08, 28687-08, 28688-08, 28692-08, 5671-09, 13408-09
Judges: KROUPA
Filed Date: 3/21/2012
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
Decisions will be entered under
KROUPA,
Dkt. No. | Petitioners | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
28666-08 | Basim Shami and Rania Ardah | $1,233.00 | $2,939.00 | -0- |
28667-08 | Arthur J. and Jo McCall Goertz | 110,005.00 | 290,754.00 | $58,672.00 |
28673-08 | Farouk and Izziah Shami | 557,583.00 | 382,225.00 | 133,270.00 |
28687-08 | Shaukat Gulamani | 10,722.00 | 7,495.00 | -0- |
28688-08 | Rami Shami and Najat Badran | -0- | 7,494.00 | -0- |
28692-08 | John and Kathy McCall | 235,877.15 | 164,881.00 | -0- |
5671-09 | Rami Shami and Najat Badran | -0- | -0- | 2,613.00 |
13408-09 | John and Kathy McCall | -0- | -0- | 57,831.00 |
Total | 915,420.15 | 855,788.00 | 252,386.00 |
After concessions,
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated. Each petitioner resided in Texas when the petitions were filed. Petitioners were shareholders of FS, an S corporation for Federal tax purposes.
FS developed, manufactured and sold internationally hair, skin and nail products. FS had hundreds of employees and was organized into various departments including manufacturing, marketing, sales, education and research and development. Product development activities were spread across departments, but activities involving scientific knowledge *80 and experimentation were conducted by the research and development department or were outsourced. The research and development department staff ranged from 18 to 27 employees during the relevant years. The staff included chemists, technicians and a vice president of research and development, who supervised the department. FS is most known for developing the BioSilk, CHI hair coloring systems and flat irons, Color Vision, SunGlitz and Deep Brilliance product lines.
Mr. Shami founded FS in 1986 after coming to the United States in the 1960's from Palestine on an academic scholarship, eschewing his father's desires that he follow him into teaching, and began working part time as a hair stylist. Mr. Shami was FS's chief executive officer, president and secretary for 2003 and 2004. He also served as the chairman of FS's board of directors and as the sole member of FS's manufacturing and operations committee. Mr. Shami was paid wages of $8,735,727, $7,988,310 and $9,529,639 for 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively.
Mr. McCall was a principal for many years of Armstrong McCall, a wholesale distributor that marketed and sold FS products. Mr. McCall became a shareholder, officer and director of *81 FS in the 1990s. Mr. McCall was FS's executive vice president and the sole member of its sales and marketing committee for 2003 and 2004. Mr. McCall was paid wages of $5,722,699 and $1,839,581 for 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Neither Mr. Shami nor Mr. McCall have formal education or training in any physical or biological science or engineering. FS contracted with alliantgroup, LP (alliantgroup) to conduct research and development tax credit studies covering the relevant years. *82 deficiency notices disallowing the claimed research credits. Petitioners filed timely petitions for redetermination with this Court.
We are asked to decide whether certain wages FS paid to Mr. Shami and Mr. McCall qualify for the research credit. We begin with the burden of proof. The Commissioner's determinations in a deficiency notice are presumed correct, and taxpayers bear the burden of proving otherwise.
We now address whether certain wages FS paid to Mr. Shami and Mr. McCall qualify for the research credit. A taxpayer *83 is allowed a credit against income taxes equal to 20% of the excess (if any) of the qualified research expenses (QREs) for the taxable year over the base amount. *84
If an employee has performed both qualified services and nonqualified services, only the amount of wages allocated to the performance of qualified services constitutes QREs.
The amount of wages properly allocable to qualified services is determined by multiplying the total amount of wages paid to or incurred for the employee during the taxable year by the ratio of
A taxpayer claiming a credit under
Petitioners claim that Mr. Shami and Mr. McCall spent 80% of their time performing certain services related to FS product research and development (research and development services) that constitute qualified services for 2003 and 2004 and that Mr. Shami spent 35% of his time performing such services for 2005. Respondent argues that petitioners *86 failed to adequately substantiate the wage allocations for Mr. Shami and Mr. McCall. We agree.
FS's product research and development was conducted across numerous departments and by many employees. Petitioners failed to provide any documentation that establishes how much time, if any, Mr. Shami or Mr. McCall spent performing research and development services during the relevant years. Moreover, testimony petitioners offered to substantiate the time Mr. Shami and Mr. McCall spent performing purported qualified services was inadequate. Petitioners offered the testimony of Mr. Shami, Mr. McCall and two FS employees, Jason Yates and Tai Pham. Several witnesses contradicted Mr. Shami's testimony, and no witnesses corroborated Mr. McCall's testimony. The testimony of the two FS employees was general, vague, conclusory and insufficient to establish the time Mr. Shami or Mr. McCall spent performing any specific service. In sum, we found all of their testimony self-serving and unreliable. We need not and do not accept any of their testimony.
Petitioners argue that we must estimate the amount of wages allocable to qualified services if we find either Mr. Shami or Mr. McCall performed qualified services. We disagree. If a taxpayer establishes that he or she paid or incurred an expense but does not establish the amount of the expense, this Court may approximate the amount of the expense, bearing heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his or her own making.
Petitioners failed to satisfy the Court that there is sufficient evidence to estimate the appropriate allocation of wages between qualified services and nonqualified services for Mr. Shami and Mr. McCall. The
Petitioners rely on
In
We have considered all arguments made in reaching our decision and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing *90 and the parties' concessions,
1. This case is consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing and opinion with the cases of Arthur J. Goertz and Jo McCall Goertz, Docket No. 28667-08; Farouk Shami and Izziah Shami, Docket No. 28673-08; Shaukat Gulamani, Docket No. 28687-08; Rami Shami and Najat Badran, Docket Nos. 28688-08 and 5671-09; and John McCall and Kathy McCall, Docket Nos. 28692-08 and 13408-09.↩
1. The parties disagree as to whether the remaining FS employees, whose wages FS used to claim the research credit for the relevant years, engaged in qualified research within the meaning of
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the relevant years, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.↩
3. The attorneys representing petitioners are alliantgroup employees. The Court is satisfied that the attorneys' representation of petitioners did not create a conflict of interest under
4. In 1986 Congress created stricter eligibility requirements for claiming the research credit out of concern that taxpayers were interpreting the research credit too broadly and that "some taxpayers * * * claimed the credit for virtually any expenses relating to product development." S. Rept. No. 99-313, at 694-695 (1986),
5. We note that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas decision from which the taxpayer appealed in
Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1930 )
Trinity Industries, Inc. v. United States ( 2010 )
Jack E. Golsen and Sylvia H. Golsen v. Commissioner of ... ( 1971 )
W. Horace Williams, Sr., and Viola Bloch Williams v. United ... ( 1957 )
Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner ( 1992 )
Tokarski v. Commissioner ( 1986 )
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering ( 1934 )
United States v. McFerrin ( 2009 )
Nicholas E. Eustace v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 2002 )
Golsen v. Commissioner ( 1970 )