DocketNumber: No. 17551-98
Citation Numbers: 79 T.C.M. 1790, 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126, 2000 T.C. Memo. 112
Filed Date: 3/30/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126">*126 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SWIFT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 4,760 in petitioner's corporate Federal income tax for 1993.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The $ 4,760 deficiency determined by respondent is based on a change in petitioner's method of accounting for its California franchise tax liabilities. Petitioner does not dispute the change in its method of accounting for California franchise tax liabilities. Petitioner, however, contests the $ 14,000
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner, a Delaware corporation, maintained its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. Since December 26, 1989, petitioner has been subject to the California Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax (franchise2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126">*127 tax). See
The franchise tax is imposed on corporations for the privilege of doing business in California each year (privilege year). The franchise tax for the privilege year is computed on the basis of the corporation's net income earned in the previous year (income year).
From 1990 to 1995, for Federal income tax purposes, petitioner generally used the accrual method of accounting to compute its income and deductions. Petitioner, however, computed its deductions for its franchise tax liabilities under the cash method of accounting. On its 1992 corporate Federal income tax return, petitioner deducted a total of $ 24,603 in franchise tax paid in 1992 relating to privilege year 1992 ($ 10,603) and to privilege year 1993 ($ 14,000). On its 1993 corporate Federal income tax return, petitioner deducted a total of $ 36,229 in franchise tax paid in 1993 relating to privilege year 1993 ($ 11,029) and to privilege year 1994 ($ 25,200).
Respondent audited petitioner's corporate Federal income tax returns for 1993, 1994, and 1995. During the audit, respondent required petitioner for 1993 and subsequent years to change its cash method2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126">*128 of accounting for the franchise tax liabilities to the accrual method of accounting, under which a deduction in the privilege year is allowed only for franchise tax due for that year.
Respondent concluded that the change in petitioner's accounting method resulted in a deduction of the same $ 14,000 franchise tax both on petitioner's 1992 and 1993 corporate Federal income tax returns. By the time respondent required the above change in petitioner's method of accounting for California franchise tax, under the period of limitations applicable to 1992, petitioner's 1992 corporate Federal income tax return was closed for assessment.
Relying on
OPINION
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126">*129 Petitioner contends that respondent's $ 14,000
The courts consistently hold that
While respondent may be precluded by the statute of
limitations from determining deficiencies in income tax for some
of the prior2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126">*130 years,
income for the (*) (*) (*) [open] taxable year for the
amount (*) (*) (*) erroneously deducted under (*) (*) (*)
[petitioner's] accounting practice during closed years. (*) (*)
(*) It is not meant to provide a means to correct errors of
past years, but rather is intended to takeinto account in the
year of change (*) (*) (*) those adjustments which are necessary
solely by reason of the change in accounting method in order to
prevent amounts from being duplicated or omitted. [Citations
omitted.]
As explained in
Respondent contends that the
Respondent's
Petitioner also suggests that the $ 14,000 franchise tax deduction in question did not, for petitioner, constitute a "material item" and therefore that the
We hold that
To reflect the foregoing,
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 126">*132 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.