Tippin v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 27 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 25076-92.,25076-92. |
| Citation | 104 T.C. No. 26,104 T.C. 518 |
| Parties | James W. TIPPIN and Billie R. Tippin, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James W. Tippin, pro se.
Charles J. Graves, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
P is an attorney who operates his law practice as a sole proprietorship. During the years under consideration, he had six employees. The IRS filed Notices of Federal Tax Liens against Ps. The tax liens related to Ps' unpaid Federal income tax liabilities, interest, and penalties for 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986, totaling approximately $67,000. Subsequently, P filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. At that time, receivables due P's law practice totaled approximately $20,000. P filed an application to use the receivables of his law practice. The Bankruptcy Court ordered P to pay $850 per month to the IRS as adequate protection with respect to the law practice's receivables. The order did not mandate how the IRS was to apply the $850 payments. The IRS applied the $850 payments to offset tax, penalties, and interest, in that order, for the earliest period and then for the next succeeding period until the payments were absorbed. Ps deducted the $850 payments as business interest on Schedules C attached to their Federal income tax returns for the years under consideration.
3. Held, further: No portion of the payments is deductible. The portion applied to interest on Ps' tax deficiencies for prior years is a nondeductible personal interest expense.
Ps reported the income and expenses of P's law practice using the cash receipts and disbursements method. Ps deducted the gross wages paid to the employees of P's law practice. R disallowed a deduction for income tax, FICA, and FUTA taxes that were unpaid in the year in which a deduction for such taxes was claimed. Rather, R allowed a deduction for such taxes in the subsequent year, when such taxes were paid.
1. Held: Ps are entitled to deductions for the gross wages of the employees of P's law practice. The gross wages include each employee's share of the FICA tax as well as each employee's income tax wage withholdings.
2. Held, further: Ps are not entitled to deduct either the FUTA taxes or P's share of FICA taxes until the year in which such taxes are paid.
Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioners' Federal income taxes:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Accuracy- ¦
+----+----------+---------------+---------------+---------+------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Related ¦
+----+----------+-----------------------------------------+------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Additions to Tax ¦Penalty ¦
+----+----------+-----------------------------------------+------------¦
¦Year¦Deficiency¦Sec. 6651(a)(1)¦Sec. 6653(a)(1)¦Sec. 6661¦Sec. 6662(a)¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦1988¦$ 7,879 ¦$1,970 ¦$1,219 ¦$1,970 ¦— ¦
+----+----------+---------------+---------------+---------+------------¦
¦1989¦14,274 ¦714 ¦— ¦— ¦$2,855 ¦
+----+----------+---------------+---------------+---------+------------¦
¦1990¦17,079 ¦— ¦— ¦— ¦3,416 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
After concessions,1 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to Schedule C deductions for bankruptcy court-ordered adequate protection payments made during 1988, 1989, and 1990; (2) whether petitioners are entitled to Schedule C deductions for wages paid during 1988, 1989, and 1990 in excess of the amounts allowed in the notice of deficiency; (3) whether petitioners are entitled to Schedule C deductions for unemployment taxes and the employer's portion of employment taxes paid during 1989 and 1990 in excess of the amounts allowed in the notice of deficiency; (4) whether petitioners are liable for section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for filing delinquent 1988 and 1989 returns; (5) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax for negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations pursuant to section 6653(a)(1) for 1988, and for the accuracy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a) for 1989 and 1990; and (6) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax for substantial understatement pursuant to section 6661 for 1988.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section and chapter references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years under consideration. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The facts in this case have been fully stipulated. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners James W. and Billie R. Tippin2 resided in Leawood, Kansas, at the time they filed their petition.
Petitioners untimely filed Federal income tax returns for 1988 and 1989. Pursuant to extensions, petitioners' 1988 and 1989 Federal income tax returns were due on October 15, 1989, and August 15, 1990, respectively. Both returns were filed on September 4, 1990. Petitioners timely filed their 1990 Federal income tax return. Respondent timely mailed a notice of deficiency to petitioners for the years under consideration.
Petitioner is an attorney who operates his law practice as a sole proprietorship. During the years under consideration, he had six employees. Petitioner's areas of expertise are tax and bankruptcy law. The income and deductions relating to petitioner's law practice were deducted on Schedules C attached to petitioners' Federal income tax returns.
On November 18, 1987, and April 20, 1988, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed Notices of Federal Tax Liens against petitioners in Johnson County, Kansas. The tax liens related to petitioners' unpaid Federal income tax liabilities, interest, and penalties for 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986, totaling $67,153.74.
On June 29, 1988, petitioner filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas (bankruptcy court). At that time, receivables due petitioner's law practice totaled approximately $20,000. The IRS had a secured interest in all of these receivables.
On July 1, 1988, petitioner filed an “Application to Use Cash Collateral in the Ordinary Course of Business and Motion to Reduce Time for Notice and to Limit Notice” in the bankruptcy court. A hearing with respect to petitioner's application was held on July 11, 1988. At the hearing, petitioner requested that in the event adequate protection payments3 to the IRS were ordered, the payments be applied to petitioners' back taxes rather than to interest or penalties.
On September 10, 1988, the bankruptcy court entered an “Order of Adequate Protection and For Use of Cash Collateral”. Among other things, the bankruptcy court's order provided that petitioner “shall be allowed to use cash collateral of the United States in the form of accounts receivable”, and granted the IRS “a continuing interest in the debtor's accounts receivable”. Pursuant to the order, petitioner was required to pay $850 per month to the IRS as adequate protection with respect to the law practice's receivables. The order did not mandate how the IRS was to apply the $850 payments.
In response to a request from the bankruptcy court, the United States/IRS filed a “Proof of Claim for Internal Revenue Taxes” on November 16, 1988 ( superseding a prior proof of claim filed on July 18, 1988). The proof of claim asserted that petitioners were liable for the following amounts as of the date of the bankruptcy petition:
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Tax ¦Date Tax¦Tax ¦Penalty to ¦Interest to ¦Notice of ¦
+--------+--------+----------+-------------+-------------+----------¦
¦Period ¦Assessed¦Due ¦Petition Date¦Petition Date¦Lien Filed¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦12/31/83¦4/28/86 ¦$ 1,739.50¦$3,411.87 ¦$5,209.59 ¦11/18/87 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦12/31/84¦7/27/87 ¦12,259.00 ¦6,507.39 ¦5,711.78 ¦11/18/87 ¦
+--------+--------+----------+-------------+-------------+----------¦
¦12/31/85¦2/15/88 ¦11,725.00 ¦5,010.41 ¦3,334.46 ¦4/20/88 ¦
+--------+--------+----------+-------------+-------------+----------¦
¦12/31/86¦2/22/88 ¦12,470.00 ¦4,468.10 ¦1,874.07 ¦4/20/88 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
On January 5, 1994, the bankruptcy court entered a decree closing the chapter 11 case.
Petitioner made the required adequate protection payments to the IRS during the years under consideration. These payments totaled $4,250 in 1988, $10,200 in 1989, and $9,350 in 1990. The IRS applied the payments first to petitioners' 1983 and 1984 overdue taxes, then to penalties, and finally to interest, as follows:4
+--------------------------------+
¦¦ ¦1983 ¦1984 ¦
+--------------------------------¦
¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redlark v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...far enabled us to avoid a decision as to the impact of section 163(h)(2)(A) and the temporary regulation thereunder. Tippin v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 518, 529 (1995) (taxpayer failed to show any relationship between the interest expense and any business); Crouch v. Commissioner, T.C.Memo. 1......
-
Badell v. Commissioner
...Badell and Wilson were negligent, we consider their legal education and their years of legal experience. See Tippin v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,615], 104 T.C. 518, 534 (1995); Glenn v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,844(M)], T.C. Memo. 1995-399, affd. [97-1 USTC ¶ 50,101] 103 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1996). ......
-
Montgomery v. Commissioner
...also bear the burden of proving that they had substantial authority for omitting an item from their return. See Tippin v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,615], 104 T.C. 518, 535 (1995). We find that petitioners have failed to satisfy their burden of proving that respondent's imposition of the additio......
-
Joseph P. v. Commissioner
...if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for such portion and if the taxpayer acted in good faith. Tippin v. Commissioner [Dec. 50,615], 104 T.C. 518, 533-534 (1995). Petitioners claim that they were completely ignorant of what appeared on their tax returns, which were prepared by an ......
-
Can an individual deduct interest paid on a business-related tax deficiency?
...opinion, 35 F3d 574 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Ray V. Rose, TC Memo 1995-75, Holmes F. Crouch, TC Memo 1995-289, and James W. Tippin, 104 TC 518 (2) See James J. Standing, 28 TC 789 (1957), aff'd, 259 F2d 450 (4th Cir. 1958) (2 AFTR2d 5850, 58-2 USTC [paragraph]9835), acq., Action on Decisi......
-
The accuracy-related penalty.
...higher standard: "[W]e take into account the legal background and years of legal experience possessed by petitioner's owner(s)"); Tippin, 104 T.C. 518 (1995) ("[A]n attorney specializing in taxation and bankruptcy law ... is held to a higher standard of (18.) Sec. 6662(c). (19.) Indeed, in ......
-
When will reliance on a tax adviser avoid an accuracy-related penalty?
...Martin, TC Memo 1995-448. Taxpayer who are tax professionals themselves are held to a higher standard of care; see, e.g., James W. Tippin, 104 TC 518 (1995). A court is less likely to sustain an RCGF defense based on reliance on anther tax (15) See Dona E. Conway, TC Memo 1994-405. (16) See......