DocketNumber: No. 13372-06
Citation Numbers: 2009 T.C. Memo. 184, 98 T.C.M. 95, 2009 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 185
Judges: \"Haines, Harry A.\"
Filed Date: 8/11/2009
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HAINES,
For purposes of the pending motion, the following facts have been assumed. At the time they filed their petition, petitioners resided in Illinois. Mr. Beard was a majority shareholder in two S corporations, *186 MMCD, Inc. (MMCD), and MMSD, Inc. (MMSD). Mr. Beard had a 76-percent stock ownership interest in each entity.
On August 24, 1999, petitioners entered into short sales whereby they borrowed U.S. Treasury notes from a third party and sold them for cash to another third party. These sales generated $ 12,160,000 in cash.
On August 25, 1999, petitioners used this cash to buy more Treasury notes in two transactions of $ 5,700,000 and $ 6,460,000. On the same day petitioners transferred to MMCD and MMSD the purchased Treasury notes of $ 5,700,000 and $ 6,460,000, respectively, together with the short positions (the obligation following the short sale to replace the borrowed securities). On the same day MMCD and MMSD sold their Treasury notes and closed the short positions on the Treasury notes for $ 7,500,000 and $ 8,500,000, respectively.
On August 29, 1999, Mr. Beard sold his entire interest in MMCD and in MMSD to Unicom, an unrelated third-party purchaser, for $ 6,574,939 and $ 7,638,211, respectively.
On April 11, 2000, petitioners jointly filed their 1999 Federal income tax return. On their Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, petitioners claimed a cost basis of $ 6,161,351 in MMCD and *187 $ 7,638,463 in MMSD and net gains from the sales of the shares of $ 413,588 and $ 992,748, respectively. Petitioners also reported gross proceeds from the sale of Treasury notes of $ 12,125,340, a cost basis of $ 12,160,000, and a resulting net loss of $ 34,660. There is no indication on Schedule M-2, Analysis of Accumulated Adjustments Account, Other Adjustments Account, and Shareholders' Undistributed Taxable Income Previously Taxed, of the 1999 income tax return of either MMCD or MMSD that the S corporations had assumed the liability to cover the short position in Treasury notes.
On April 13, 2006, respondent issued a notice of deficiency reducing petitioners' bases in the MMCD and MMSC stock by $ 5,700,000 and $ 6,460,000, respectively. 2 The result was a $ 12,160,000 increase in the capital gain from the sale. Respondent contends that the bases in the MMCD and MMSC stock were inflated because they were not reduced by the liability to close the short position.
On July 11, 2006, petitioners filed a timely petition with this Court. On September 11, 2007, petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment on the *188 ground that the notice of deficiency was issued after the period of limitations had expired. Petitioners contend that overstatement of basis is not an omission from gross income for purposes of the extended period of limitations under
On February 19, 2008, respondent filed his notice of objection to petitioners' motion, agreeing that the material facts necessary to determine whether petitioners actions constitute an omission from gross income are not in dispute. Respondent contends, however, that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the notice of deficiency was timely issued under
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.
Under the general rule set forth in
In the case of a trade or business, the term 'gross income' means the total of the amounts *190 received or accrued from the sale of goods or services * * * prior to the diminution by the cost of such sales or services.
Also, In determining the amount omitted from gross income, there shall not be taken into account any amount which is omitted from gross income stated in the return if such amount is 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.
Respondent argues that the overstatement of basis in a context outside of the sale of goods or services should constitute an omission from gross income and thus trigger the 6-year limitations period under
In
In
Respondent contends that
The Commissioner raised these same arguments with regard to
We believe that it would be inappropriate to "distinguish and diminish the Supreme Court's holding in
We assume that petitioners overstated the bases of their S corporations on their 1999 return. Under
In reaching these holdings, the Court has considered all arguments made and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
2. Respondent also disallowed $ 155,858 of petitioners' itemized deductions.↩
3. Respondent also argues, alternatively, that petitioners' transfer of Treasury notes to the S corporations should be recast as bona fide and that petitioners' two S corporations omitted income from their returns by failing to report the close of their short positions. See
4. Specifically, four of the seven partners in Bakersfield took the following steps to increase Bakersfield's zero basis in its oil and gas property: (1) The four partners formed a new partnership, Bakersfield Resources, L.L.C. (Resources); (2) the four partners sold their partnership interests in Bakersfield to Resources for $ 19,924,870. The four partners held a collective majority stake in Bakersfield and thus caused a technical termination of the Bakersfield partnership and the formation of a new partnership in which Resources held a majority interest under
5. Several cases have questioned the continuing viability of
6. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also dismissed the Commissioner's sub-argument that applying
CC & F Western Operations Ltd. Partnership v. Commissioner , 273 F.3d 402 ( 2001 )
Walter E. Hendricks and Dema P. Hendricks v. Commissioner ... , 423 F.2d 485 ( 1970 )
Bakersfield Energy Partners, LP v. Commissioner , 568 F.3d 767 ( 2009 )
Salman Ranch Ltd. v. United States , 573 F.3d 1362 ( 2009 )
Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 17 F.3d 965 ( 1994 )
Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner , 78 S. Ct. 1033 ( 1958 )
Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner , 98 T.C. 518 ( 1992 )
Badaracco v. Commissioner , 104 S. Ct. 756 ( 1984 )
Hendricks v. Commissioner , 51 T.C. 235 ( 1968 )
Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner , 90 T.C. 678 ( 1988 )
Zaentz v. Commissioner , 90 T.C. 753 ( 1988 )
Naftel v. Commissioner , 85 T.C. 527 ( 1985 )
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner , 85 T.C. 812 ( 1985 )
Bakersfield Energy Partners, LP v. Comm'r , 128 T.C. 207 ( 2007 )