Johnson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Decision Date16 June 1997
Docket Number16039–93,Nos. 16038–93,17007–93,14430–94.,s. 16038–93
Citation108 T.C. 448,108 T.C. No. 22
PartiesRameau A. and Phyllis A. JOHNSON, et al.,1 Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kenneth G. Kolmin, Francis J. Emmons, and Aaron E. Hoffman, for petitioners.

Karen J. Goheen and Elsie Hall, for respondent.

BEGHE, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax, additions to tax and penalties as follows: 2

Rameau A. Johnson and Phyllis A. Johnson (the Johnsons), docket No. 16038–93.

+--------------------------------+
                ¦¦    ¦¦          ¦¦Penalty      ¦
                ++----++----------++-------------¦
                ¦¦Year¦¦Deficiency¦¦Sec. 6662(a) ¦
                ++----++----------++-------------¦
                ¦¦1991¦¦$4,097    ¦¦$819         ¦
                +--------------------------------+
                

Thomas R. Herring and Karon S. Herring (the Herrings), docket No. 16039–93.

+--------------------------------+
                ¦¦    ¦¦          ¦¦Penalty      ¦
                ++----++----------++-------------¦
                ¦¦Year¦¦Deficiency¦¦Sec. 6662(a) ¦
                ++----++----------++-------------¦
                ¦¦1991¦¦$2,093    ¦¦$419         ¦
                +--------------------------------+
                

DFM Investment Co., d.b.a. St. Louis Honda, docket No. 17007–93.

+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦             ¦          ¦Addition to Tax¦Penalty     ¦
                +-------------+----------+---------------+------------¦
                ¦Year Ended   ¦Deficiency¦Sec. 6653(a)   ¦Sec. 6662(a)¦
                +-------------+----------+---------------+------------¦
                ¦Mar. 31, 1989¦$ 2,285   ¦$114           ¦—0—         ¦
                +-------------+----------+---------------+------------¦
                ¦Mar. 31, 1990¦110,378   ¦—0—            ¦$22,076     ¦
                +-------------+----------+---------------+------------¦
                ¦Mar. 31, 1992¦34,686    ¦—0—            ¦6,937       ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                

David F. Mungenast and Barbara J. Mungenast (the Mungenasts) docket No. 14430–94.

+------------------------------------------------+
                ¦¦    ¦¦          ¦¦Addition to Tax¦¦Penalty     ¦
                ++----++----------++---------------++------------¦
                ¦¦Year¦¦Deficiency¦¦Sec. 6651(a)(1)¦¦Sec. 6662(a)¦
                ++----++----------++---------------++------------¦
                ¦¦1990¦¦$355,623  ¦¦$27,492        ¦¦$71,125     ¦
                ++----++----------++---------------++------------¦
                ¦¦1991¦¦84,431    ¦¦5,316          ¦¦16,886      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+
                

These cases were consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion by reason of the presence of common issues regarding the methods used by certain motor vehicle dealerships to report income and expense on the sale of multiyear vehicle service contracts (VSC's). In docket Nos. 16038–93, 16039–93, and 17007–93 all the adjustments are attributable to these common issues. In docket No. 14430–94 only the adjustments related to the tax treatment of VSC's have been consolidated; the remaining adjustments were settled by the parties separately. Prior to trial, respondent revised the adjustments on the basis of more complete information, as a result of which the deficiencies now asserted are lower than those set forth in the notices of deficiency. Respondent has also conceded the addition to tax under section 6653(a) in docket No. 17007–93 and penalties under section 6662(a) in all dockets to the extent attributable to the consolidated issues. The issues that remain for decision are:

1. Whether accrual basis motor vehicle dealerships may exclude from gross income for the year of the sale of a VSC that portion of the contract price that they were required to deposit in escrow to secure their obligations under the contract;

2. whether the dealerships may exclude from gross income the investment income earned by the funds held in escrow; and

3. whether the dealerships may exclude or deduct from gross income for the year of the sale of a VSC those portions of the contract price that they remitted to third parties as prepayments of service fees for administration of the VSC program and an insurance premium for indemnification of their losses under the program. If respondent prevails on these issues, we must further decide whether the income of one of the dealerships is subject to an additional adjustment pursuant to section 481.

We hold that the dealerships' method of accounting for VSC's was not a proper application of the accrual method, and, except in regard to the treatment of the dealerships' administrative fee expenses, we sustain respondent's revised adjustments in full.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference. At the times they filed their petitions, the Johnsons, the Herrings, and the Mungenasts were residents of, and DFM Investment Co. maintained its principal place of business in, the State of Missouri. The relationships between petitioners and the dealerships whose method of accounting for VSC's is the subject of controversy in these cases (collectively, the Dealerships) are set forth below:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦          ¦                   ¦Tax Status¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦Corporate ¦Doing              ¦During    ¦Petitioners                        ¦
                ¦          ¦                   ¦Taxable   ¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦Name      ¦Business As        ¦Yr. (s) At¦Owning Shares                      ¦
                ¦          ¦                   ¦Issue     ¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦DFM       ¦                   ¦Subchapter¦                                   ¦
                ¦Investment¦St. Louis Honda    ¦C corp.   ¦David Mungenast (at least 82%)     ¦
                ¦Co.       ¦                   ¦          ¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦DRK       ¦                   ¦Subchapter¦                                   ¦
                ¦Investment¦St. Louis Acura    ¦S corp.   ¦David Mungenast (100%)             ¦
                ¦Co.       ¦                   ¦          ¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦Capco     ¦                   ¦Subchapter¦                                   ¦
                ¦Sales,    ¦St. Louis Lexus    ¦S corp.   ¦David Mungenast (100%)             ¦
                ¦Inc.      ¦                   ¦          ¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦MAD       ¦Alton Toyota/ Dodge¦(not in   ¦                                   ¦
                ¦Investment¦(prior to 1991)    ¦evidence) ¦David Mungenast (not in evidence)  ¦
                ¦Co.       ¦                   ¦          ¦                                   ¦
                +----------+-------------------+----------+-----------------------------------¦
                ¦DAR, Inc. ¦Alton Toyota/ Dodge¦Subchapter¦David Mungenast (50%), Rameau      ¦
                ¦          ¦(beginning 1991)   ¦S corp.   ¦Johnson (33%), Thomas Herring (17%)¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

During the years at issue, the four Dealerships offered VSC's under a common program in conjunction with the sale of new and used motor vehicles. Before October 1991 the program was administered by Mechanical Breakdown, Inc. (MBP), a corporation unrelated to petitioners. From October 1991 through March 1992, the program was administered by Automotive Professionals, Inc. (API), also unrelated to petitioners, but the structure and operation of the program remained, in all material respects, substantially unchanged.3 A standard form of VSC recites that it is a contract between the issuing dealer and the motor vehicle purchaser (referred to in some contracts as the “contract holder”). Under the terms of the VSC, the dealer agrees, for a fixed price, to

make repairs or replace any of the below listed parts or components of the Contract Holder's Vehicle covered hereunder or cause such repairs or replacement to be made by an authorized repair facility at no cost for parts or labor to the Contract Holder (but subject to applicable deductible, if any) whenever covered components or parts in the Contract Holder's said Vehicle experience a Mechanical Breakdown.

The parties agree that the full purchase price of the VSC was due and collected at the time of sale.4

The VSC purchaser can select the term of coverage he desires from a range of options, each defined by reference to a specified time or mileage limitation, whichever is reached first. Approximately three-quarters of the contracts sold by the Dealerships during the years at issue provided coverage for at least 5 years or 60,000 miles. However, the aggregate limit of a dealer's liability is fixed in some of the contracts as the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase and in the rest of the contracts as the lesser of the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase or $10,000.

The VSC provides that

A specific amount of the Contract purchase price shall be held in escrow in accordance with and as specified in Automotive Professionals, Inc.'s Administrator Agreement, a copy of which is available from the Dealer. Said amount shall be paid directly to the escrow account established by the Administrator and Brokerage Professionals, Inc., the Escrow Trustees. * * * All amounts placed in escrow, together with accrued investment income, shall constitute a Primary Loss Reserve Fund (the “Reserves”) for payment of claims covered by the Contract. Dealer further agrees to provide an insurance policy with the Travelers Indemnity Company to cover claims in excess of the Reserves and continue to maintain said policy in force during the term of this Contract.

The purchaser is directed to return the vehicle to the dealer in the event of a mechanical breakdown. Repairs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Fairbank v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • February 23, 2023
    ... ... trust"); Hart v. Commissioner , 54 F.2d 848, ... 850-51 (1st Cir. 1932), rev'g in part 21 B.T.A ... 1001 (1930); Johnson v. Commissioner , 108 T.C. 448, ... 475 (1997), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other ... grounds , 184 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 1999); George ... ...
  • Greiner v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • June 30, 2015
    ...the use of an improper method only constitutes the adoption of a method if used on at least two consecutive returns. Johnson v. Comm'r, 108 T.C. 448, 494 (1997) (discussing the adoption of a method of accounting in the context of I.R.C. § 481, which works in tandem with § 446(e)), aff'd in ......
  • Continuing Life Cmtys. Thousand Oaks v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • April 6, 2022
    ...date the payment is received; the date the payment is due; or the date of performance. Schlude, 372 U.S. at 137; Johnson v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 448, 459 (1997), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 184 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 1999); Harkins v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1547, 1550 (2001). There i......
  • Perry Funeral Home, Inc. v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • December 16, 2003
    ...(2) due; or (3) earned by performance. Schlude v. Commissioner [63-1 USTC ¶ 9284], 372 U.S. 128, 133 (1963); Johnson v. Commissioner [Dec. 52,090], 108 T.C. 448, 459 (1997), affd. in part, revd. in part and remanded on another ground [99-2 USTC ¶ 50,699] 184 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. As caselaw ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Ing Trusts and the State of California
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Trusts & Estates Quarterly (CLA) No. 26-1, January 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...exercise his power for the benefit of the grantor unless it would be detrimental to his own interests to do so." Johnson v. Comr. (1997) 108 TC 448, 484 (citing HR Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. A217; Bittker & Lokken, Federal Tax'n of Inc., Est. & Gifts, ¶ 80.1.3 (2d ed. 1991) now (2d/......
  • Chapter 10 TAXES
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Institute A Practitioner's Guide to Liquidation and Litigation Trusts
    • Invalid date
    ...9603013.[111] See IRS Rev. Proc. 94-45, 1994-28 C.B. 124; PLR 200326015.[112] See Rev. Rul. 77-230, 1977-2, C.B. 214; Johnson v. Comm'r, 108 T.C. No. 22 (1997).[113] See IRC § 641; PLR 8848019; GCM 32368.[114] See "Selected Federal Income Tax," supra.[115] See IRC §§ 671-679; PLR 200128001.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT