DocketNumber: Docket No. 25580-82.
Citation Numbers: 53 T.C.M. 824, 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 243, 1987 T.C. Memo. 246
Filed Date: 5/11/1987
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COHEN,
Petitioners Jerry L. Shebester (petitioner) and Susan J. Shebester timely filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1979. Petitioners resided in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when their petition was filed. Their case was submitted fully stipulated, and the facts set forth in the stipulations are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
Petitioner was majority shareholder in two electing small business corporations, A & L, Inc. (A & L) and Shebester of Hennessey, Inc. (Hennessey). Petitioner owned 80.85 percent of the stock of A & L at the close of A & L's taxable year ended October 31, 1979. Petitioner owned 98 percent of the stock of Hennessey at the close of Hennessey's taxable year ended December 31, 1979.
On and prior to September 30, 1979, the books of each corporation reflected a debt of at least $350,000 owed by A & L to Hennessey. The parties have stipulated that, were he to testify in this case, petitioner would state that the transactions giving rise to A & L's debt to Hennessey were intended by the parties to be dividends to petitioner from Hennessey and loans by him to A & L.
On September 30, 1979, petitioner*245 assumed the liability of A & L to Hennessey in return for a promissory note from A & L in the amount of $350,000. The promissory note was payable on or before January 2, 1981 and provided for accrual of interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum. A & L recorded this transaction as of September 20, 1979, as follows:
Debit | Credit | |
Accounts Payable - Shebester | $350,000 | |
of Hennessey, Inc. | ||
Note Pay - J. Shebester | $350,000 | |
to Transfer A/P from | ||
Shebester of Hennessey, | ||
Inc. to J. Shebester |
As of September 30, 1979, entries were made on the books of Hennessey as follows:
Debit | Credit | |
Drawing Account - J. Shebester | $350,000 | |
Accounts Rec. - A & L, Inc. | $350,000 | |
To transfer accounts rec. | ||
to J. Shebester |
At the end of the its taxable year Hennessey closed petitioner's drawing account by debiting his undistributed taxable income account. Petitioner's drawing account was credited by $350,000 in order to close out the $350,000 debited to that account on September 30, 1979.
Hennessey reported taxable income of $775,994 for its taxable year ended December 31, 1979. Petitioner reported $760,778 as his distributive*246 share of Hennessey's taxable income. The amount reported by petitioner included the $350,000 of undistributed income used to eliminate the charge to petitioner's drawing account that resulted from his assumption of A & L's liability to Hennessey.
A & L reported a loss of $357,220 for its fiscal year ended October 31, 1979. Petitioner reported $291,829 as his distributive share of A & L's loss.
In a notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed $285,446.45 of petitioner's $291,829 deduction for his distributive share of loss attributable to an electing small business corporation. Respondent identified the corporation as
Respondent seeks to disallow petitioner's deduction to the extent that it exceeded petitioner's adjusted basis in A & L. Respondent computed petitioner's adjusted basis in his A & L shares and his*247 adjusted basis in A & L's indebtedness to him as follows:
Capital stock | $ 500.00 | |
Paid-in or capital surplus | 2,225.00 | |
Undistributed taxable income | 5,130.00 | |
$7,855.00 | ||
X 81% | Petitioner's share- | |
holder interest in | ||
A & L, Inc. | ||
(Rounded to 81%) | ||
$6,362.55 |
*248 Two transactions may be distilled from the accounts of petitioner's electing small business corporations: (1) a transfer of $350,000 from Hennessey to A & L and (2) petitioner's apparent assumption of A & L's liability to Hennessey. Petitioner contends that the first transaction, in form a series of loans from Hennessey to A & L, was in substance a series of dividends from Hennessey to petitioner followed by loans from petitioner to A & L. Petitioner also argues that Hennessey's charge to his drawing account, a key element of the second transaction, represents an actual economic outlay entitling him to increase his basis in A & L.
Petitioner maintains that each of these transactions increased his
We conclude that the first transaction did not represent an actual economic outlay entitling petitioner to increase his basis in A & L. Petitioner argues that A & L's indebtedness to Hennessey was in substance an indebtedness to petitioner. He may not so easily disavow the form of this transaction. In
It is not the proportionability of ownership interests that is determinative. Rather, it is the crucial fact that the partnership made the loan and the partners, to the extent of their partnership interest, *251 participated therein. If the corporation should default on the loan its effects will be felt by the partners as creditors rather than the partners as shareholders.
The existence of the partnership cannot be ignored here even though the partners were simultaneously shareholders in the subchapter S corporation. If the partners had directly loaned the money to the subchapter S corporation or treated it as an addition to capital, the result would be different. See
Petitioner maintains that respondent must produce evidence indicating that A & L's indebtedness did
Petitioner's characterization of the first transaction is not corroborated by any contemporaneous evidence. The record does not contain minutes of the Hennessey board of directors or any other documentation of a dividend, nor does the record contain promissory notes for any debt of A & L to petitioner incurred before September 30, 1979. *253 The only evidence consistent with petitioner's claim is his general statement concerning his intent. This evidence, alone, is not "strong proof" sufficient to overcome the
*254
We also conclude that Hennessey's charge to petitioner's drawing account, a key element of petitioner's apparent assumption of A & L's liability, was not an actual economic outlay entitling petitioner to increase his basis in A & L.
This case is factually similar to
In
In a long list of cases, it has been held that basis-giving indebtedness for the purposes of
We concluded that "the only effect of [the] new notes was to shift the liabilities for the prior loans," and we held that the taxpayer thus did not have an adjusted basis in the loss corporation's note within the meaning of
Under all the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioner's bookkeeping maneuvers merely shifted, on paper, the liability for prior loans. Hennessey's debit to petitioner's drawing account, and its subsequent credit to that account and debit to petitioner's undistributed taxable income account, do not reflect a current economic outlay entitling petitioner to increase his basis in A & L. Although the entries in Hennessey's books technically reduced petitioner's book equity, such entries could not, absent liquidation of Hennessey, leave petitioner "poorer in a material sense." See
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the year in issue. ↩
2.
(a) General Rule. -- A net operating loss of an electing small business corporation for any taxable year shall be allowed as a deduction from gross income of the shareholders of such corporation in the manner and to the extent set forth in this section.
* * *
(c)(2) Limitation. -- A shareholder's portion of the net operating loss of an electing small business corporation for any taxable year shall not exceed the sum of --
(A) the adjusted basis * * * of the shareholder's stock in the electing small business corporation, determined as of the close of the taxable year of the corporation * * * and
(B) the adjusted basis * * * of any indebtedness of the corporation to the shareholder, determined as of the close of the taxable year of the corporation * * *.↩
3. On facts similar to those presented here, we have held that the shareholders of an electing corporation could not increase their basis in the corporation to the extent of its indebtedness to another corporation in which the shareholders held proportionally identical interests.
4. Taxpayers in similar circumstances have been treated similarly. In
Petitioners rely heavily on Burnstein's testimony that when they caused Concare to transfer money to National, they intended and believed they were actually transferring their own money. Petitioners also point out that since Concare had no financial interest in National, the funds were obviously advanced on behalf of the shareholders. Thus, they argue, that made the necessary economic outlay which allows them to acquire a basis in the indebtedness from National. Petitioners' argument is without merit and contrary to the judicial interpretation of
Sidney Kreps v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 351 F.2d 1 ( 1965 )
Morris G. Underwood and Jackie Underwood, Individuals v. ... , 535 F.2d 309 ( 1976 )
Putnam v. Commissioner , 77 S. Ct. 175 ( 1956 )
Frederick G. Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 706 F.2d 755 ( 1983 )
Neal v. United States , 313 F. Supp. 393 ( 1970 )