DocketNumber: Docket No. 12955-79.
Citation Numbers: 49 T.C.M. 464, 1985 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621, 1985 T.C. Memo. 11
Filed Date: 1/8/1985
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
*621 Petitioner had leased a hotel to a partnership (lessee).In November of 1975 petitioner and the partnership terminated the lease, and petitioner released the partnership from all of its obligations under the lease. As of December 31, 1975, petitioner had accrued, but unpaid, rent receivables due from the partnership.
Petitioner also had an accounts receivable account for its other hotel operations. Petitioner used the reserve method to determine its bad debt expense.
For the short taxable year ended November 30, 1975, the partnership (lessee) incurred a loss. An additional $20,557 of partnership losses was allocated to petitioner when it was determined that the partners who were entitled to those losses could not utilize them. Petitioner held a 40-percent interest in the partnership.
STERRETT,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, is incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner is a corporation with its principal office at 4041 Collins Avenue, Miami, Florida. Petitioner filed its corporate income tax returns for the years 1972 and 1975 with the office of the Internal Revenue Service, Holtsville, New York.
On April 9, 1957 the lessees of the Deauville Hotel formally entered into a partnership for the purpose of leasing and operating the hotel. The partnership agreement provided that each partner was to participate in the profits and losses according to their respective partnership interests. *625 amount). The reason for this shortage is twofold. First, four partners each paid in $56,250 towards the security deposit and they were required to each contribute $75,000. Second, $76,250 of the contributed security deposit was refunded to two partners. With the exception of petitioner, the other
At all relevant times, petitioner and the partnership were on the accrual method of accounting. For all years prior to 1975, petitioner had annually accrued rental income in the amount of $1,330,000 and the partnership and deducted the same amount annually as an accrued rental expense. The partnership, however, did not make all the required rental payments to petitioner. As of December 31, 1974 petitioner's books showed accrued, but unpaid, rent receivables due from the partnership of $1,551,666.
In the following year, numerous events occurred on November 24, 1975. Petitioner and the partnership entered into an agreement to terminate the lease, effective at*626 12:00 midnight on November 30, 1975. Under the agreement, the partnership was to transfer all of its assets, including the security deposit, to petitioner. Petitioner agreed to assume all of the partnership liabilities and to release the partnership from all obligations, including, but not limited to, the lease agreement obligations. Accordingly, petitioner and the partnership executed general releases to each other. Lastly, the partners of the Deauville Hotel executed a Dissolution of the Partnership. Under the dissolution agreement, the partnership released the partners from all obligations and/or rights enforceable against them.
*628 For the short taxable year ended November 30, 1975 the partnership allocated petitioner a partnership loss of $397,055. On its corporate income tax return for the year ended December 31, 1975, however, petitioner deducted $548,305 as its loss from the partnership's operations. *629 The partnership agreement provided that profits and losses were to be allocated to the partners according to their respective interests in the partnership. Under this agreement, petitioner was allocated a partnership loss of $397,055 for 1975. The record is void of any evidence showing that a special allocation agreement was entered into between the partners to allocate an additional $20,557 loss to petitioner.
Petitioner also had an accounts receivable account for its hotel operations (i.e., renting out of rooms to tourists, etc.). Instead of writing off the portion of receivables as a bad debt expense when they became uncollectible, petitioner used the reserve method to determine its bad debt expense.
For the years prior to 1975, the percentage petitioner applied against its total receivables to arrive at the addition to its reserve was one percent. For 1975 petitioner applied a percentage of three percent against its total receivables to arrive at its claimed addition to its bad debt reserve. Petitioner's CPA testified that the general economic conditions in Miami Beach and in the travel industry in 1975 justified the increase in percentage. He did not, however, mention any*630 specific instances where petitioner had trouble collecting on its receivables.
In his statutory notice of deficiency, respondent determined that the distributive share of partnership loss reported on petitioner's return should be decreased as follows:
Partnership loss reported on return | $548,305 |
Petitioner's distributed share | 307,055 |
Overstatement of partnership loss | $151,250 |
Respondent maintains that the amount of $151,250 did not constitute an allowable loss because it represented capital contributions required to be made by several members of the partnership and deposited with petitioner as rental security which petitioner failed to collect.
In the statutory notice of deficiency respondent also determined that the bad debt reserve reported on petitioner's return should be decreased by $11,285.
OPINION
The first issue to decide is whether petitioner's accrual of $701,667 in rental income in 1975 was proper. *631 emphasis on the fact that the termination of lease agreement provided that petitioner was to assume all the assets and liabilities of the partnership as of November 30, 1975, and that the partnership's liabilities exceeded their assets on that date. the termination of lease agreement, petitioner had given the partnership a general release from liability.
Under the accrual method of accounting, income is includable in gross income when all the events have occurred which fix the right to receive such income and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy.
The critical question becomes when did petitioner's right to the rental income arise. The lease agreement required annual rent of $1,330,000, payable in monthly installments of $110,833.33. As performance under the lease agreement occurred during the year, it could be determined with reasonable accuracy how much rental income petitioner had earned. Thus, generally rent, like interest, accrues from day to day, ratably over time. Hence, termination of the lease as of midnight*633 on November 30, 1975 was subsequent to petitioner's right to receive the first 11
Petitioner next argues that it is entitled to an additional $151,250 loss from partnership operations. We fail to see how this amount can reflect a loss from partnership operations. Petitioner, as the landlord, simply failed to collect $151,250 in rent from the partnership which it had previously, properly, accrued as income. If petitioner is to be entitled to a deduction for the $151,250, it must turn, as suggested above, to
Petitioner failed to prove that the rent receivable account became worthless in 1975. While petitioner did show that the partnership was insolvent as of November 30, 1975, and had been delinquent in making rental payments, these facts alone do not establish that the debt was worthless.
In the instant case, petitioner did not make an effort to collect the unpaid rent from the partnership. This is surprising because, while the partnership was possibly insolvent, the partnership had a right to require additional capital contributions from its partners to satisfy rental obligations. Despite petitioner's 40-percent interest in the partnership, this right was never exercised.
Petitioner failed to establish that its rent receivables in the amount of $151,250 became worthless in 1975, and petitioner's voluntary cancellation of the rental obligation and forgiveness
*636 Petitioner next claims that it is entitled to an additional $20,557 loss from partnership operations. This claim is without merit. This amount represents losses originally allocated to three partners and later reallocated to petitioner when it was determined that the three partners had a zero basis in their respective partnership interests and could not utilize the losses.
Petitioner does not contend that the losses were given to him pursuant to a special allocation agreement, nor does the record suggest that any special allocation agreement existed between the partners. Rather, the partnership agreement provided that profits and losses were to be allocated to the partners according to their respective interests in the partnership.Under this agreement, petitioner was allocated a partnership loss of $397,055 for 1975 and is not entitled to an additional $20,557 loss. See section 704(a).
What is a reasonable addition to the reserve is determined in light of the facts existing at the close of the taxable year of the proposed addition. The primary focus is on the total amount of debts outstanding as of the close of the taxable year, including those arising currently as well as those arising in prior taxable years, and the total amount of the existing reserve.
In disallowing a portion of petitioner's addition to its reserve, respondent applied the 6-year moving average formula approved by this Court in
Respondent's determination of what is a reasonable addition carries great weight because of the discretion vested in him under
Petitioner proffered*639 evidence in the form of testimony by Mr. Levinson, petitioner's CPA, as to changing economic conditions in the area and in the travel industry. Petitioner sought to demonstrate that its application of a percentage of three percent against its total receivables to arrive at its claimed addition to its bad debt reserve was reasonable. Petitioner also attempted to show that respondent abused his discretion by using past bad debt experience in determining the addition to the bad debt reserve. Petitioner contends that the economic climate and related circumstances as of the end of 1975
Petitioner only offered generalizations as to the prevailing economic conditions.
1. Petitioner held a 40 percent interest in the partnership.↩
2. This amount was calculated as follows:
Rent receivable as of 12/31/74 | $1,551,666 | |
Accrued rent for 1975 | 1,219,167 | |
$2,770,833 | ||
720,416 | ||
Less payments received | $2,050,417 |
3. The adjusting journal entry was received by petitioner from the partnership's CPA. No plausible explanation was given for why petitioner's rent receivables was credited $550,417. It appears that this number was used to reduce petitioner's rent receivables to $1,500,000 and correspondingly to reduce the partnership's rent payables to $1,500,000 (i.e., this figure was "plugged"). Since the partnership's CPA erroneously thought that the security deposit asset had a $1,500,000 balance, he probably believed that its application towards the remaining rent due would eliminate the amounts outstanding in petitioner's rent receivables and in the partnership's rent payables.↩
4. On petitioner's corporate income tax return for 1975, it reported a net operating loss of $122,312.↩
5. This amount represents the total of the $151,250 balance remaining in petitioner's rent receivables and the $550,417 credit to the receivables account pursuant to the adjusting journal entry. It is petitioner's contention that this credit to the receivables was erroneously made. ↩
6. Petitioner does not argue that the partnership was insolvent at any previous time when it was delinquent in making its rental payments.↩
7. Unless otherwise stated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the taxable years in issue.↩
8. We need not address respondent's alternate argument that the $151,250 did not constitute an allowable loss because it represented partner capital contributions towards the rental security deposit which petitioner failed to collect.↩
9. The validity of this formula has been upheld by the Supreme Court. See
10. Petitioner did not offer any evidence establishing that payment from any specific customer in 1975 was unlikely. Thus, petitioner's reliance on
Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner , 99 S. Ct. 773 ( 1979 )
Jones Lumber Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ... , 404 F.2d 764 ( 1968 )
Estate of Harry M. Liggett, Deceased Lucille W. Liggett, ... , 216 F.2d 548 ( 1954 )
Roth Steel Tube Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 620 F.2d 1176 ( 1980 )
Calavo, Inc., and Calavo Growers of California, Successor ... , 304 F.2d 650 ( 1962 )
Atlantic Discount Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v.... , 473 F.2d 412 ( 1973 )
Imperial Type Metal Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. , 106 F.2d 302 ( 1939 )
Spring City Foundry Co. v. Commissioner , 54 S. Ct. 644 ( 1934 )