Perry v. CIR

Decision Date28 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 18801.,18801.
Citation392 F.2d 458
PartiesWilliam H. PERRY and Marian E. Perry, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

William H. Perry, III, of Myers, Webster & Perry, Webb City, Mo., for petitioners; William C. Myers, Jr., Webb City, Mo., on the brief.

Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent; Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Attorneys Lee A. Jackson and Harry Baum, Washington, D. C., on the brief.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and MEHAFFY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

MEHAFFY, Circuit Judge.

William H. Perry and Marian E. Perry, taxpayers, petition for a review of the decision of the Tax Court determining a deficiency in their federal income tax for the year 1961 in the amount of $2,118.96. The Tax Court's opinion, written by Judge Forrester, is officially reported in 47 T.C. 159. Our jurisdiction is conferred by § 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We affirm.

The taxpayers owned 2,999 shares of stock in Cardinal Castings, Inc., a Missouri corporation which was organized and commenced business operations in March, 1960 with a total of 3,000 shares outstanding. Their son owned the other outstanding share. On March 21, 1960, Cardinal made a timely election to be taxed as a small business corporation under Subchapter S of the Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1371 et seq.1

Cardinal filed its tax returns on the accrual basis for fiscal years ending on October 31. For the first taxable year from March 30, 1960 through October 31, 1960, Cardinal had a net operating loss of $9,294.30. For the next fiscal year ending October 31, 1961, it had a net operating loss of $6,069.53. Under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 1374(a), (b), a Subchapter S corporation does not deduct its net operating losses, but the losses it sustains may be claimed by the shareholders on their individual returns on the basis of their proportionate equity in the ownership of the corporation.2 This loss, however, is limited by 26 U.S.C. § 1374 (c) (2) to the sum of the adjusted basis of their stock plus the adjusted basis of any indebtedness owed them by the corporation.3 Cardinal occupied a building owned by the taxpayers and was indebted to them for rent thereon amounting to $700.00 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1960, and in the amount of $1,200.00 for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1961. Additionally, Cardinal owed the taxpayers $1,421.50 for cash advanced during the fiscal year ending October 31, 1961, for which it had executed a promissory note to taxpayers, payable on demand, dated August 26, 1961. Taxpayers were allowed deductions for these items.

The taxpayers also added to the basis of indebtedness which they claimed from Cardinal a promissory note in the sum of $7,942.33, executed by Cardinal, dated October 31, 1961, and payable January 1, 1964. In return for this note, the taxpayers gave to Cardinal their promissory note in the same amount, also dated October 31, 1961, but payable on demand. This transaction resulted in a tax advantage to the taxpayers, which was disallowed by the Commissioner and upheld by the Tax Court, who found that the notes were executed after the close of the corporation's fiscal year ending October 31, 1961, and predated, and that, therefore, the taxpayers were not entitled to include the $7,942.33 note from Cardinal in arriving at the basis of their indebtedness. The issue here is whether the Tax Court was justified in finding that the exchange of these notes in the amount of $7,942.33 each did not in fact take place prior to the end of Cardinal's fiscal year on October 31, 1961, and, in the event it is found that the court was justified in so holding, whether, under the circumstances here, the taxpayers are precluded from adding their note from Cardinal to their basis of indebtedness for that year.

In the trial to the Tax Court, taxpayers made the additional contention that they were entitled to claim as deductions certain Cardinal debts which they had guaranteed and for which they were assertedly liable. Taxpayers did not pay any of these debts, which they guaranteed, and this issue has been abandoned on appeal. They have also abandoned any contest with regard to their tax liability for the fiscal year 1960, and, therefore, the issue presently before us involves merely the question of whether the Tax Court correctly found that the taxpayers did not meet their burden of proof in establishing that the $7,942.33 notes exchanged between them and Cardinal were executed and delivered to each other prior to the close of the corporation's 1961 fiscal year. In this connection, the Tax Court found:

"Sometime after October 31, 1961, the petitioner executed and delivered to Cardinal Castings an instrument purporting to be a demand promissory note which had been predated to October 31, 1961. The instrument was drawn in the amount of $7,942.33 and was payable to the company\'s order. This transaction is reflected on the company\'s books by an entry dated October 31, 1962, in the notes receivable account. The balance sheet attached to the company\'s Federal income tax return for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1961, indicates that the company had no notes receivable on October 31, 1961.
"Sometime after October 31, 1961, Cardinal Castings executed and delivered to the petitioner an instrument purporting to be a promissory note due on January 1, 1964, which also had been predated to October 31, 1961. This instrument was also drawn in the amount of $7,942.33 and was payable to the order of the petitioner. This transaction is also first reflected on the company\'s books by an entry dated October 31, 1962, in the notes payable account. The balance sheet attached to the company\'s Federal income tax return for the year ending October 31, 1961, indicates that the company had notes payable outstanding only in the amount of $1,421.50 at the end of said year.
"The petitioners did not advance cash or other valuable consideration to Cardinal Castings prior to, or on October 31, 1961, in connection with the exchange of notes above described, nor were such notes in fact executed and delivered on or before October 31, 1961." 47 T.C. at 161.

Further, in connection with this issue the Tax Court stated in its opinion at page 164:

"The petitioners make a second argument on this issue to the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Fox v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Leavitt )
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • February 10, 1988
    ...Underwood v. Commissioner, 535 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1976), affg. 63 T.C. 468 (1975); Perry v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 159, affd. 392 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1968); Wheat v. United States, 353 F.Supp. 720 (S.D. Tex. 1973). Neal v. United States, 313 F.Supp. 393 (C.D. Cal. 1970). In the instant case p......
  • Calcutt v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • July 13, 1988
    ...T.C. Memo. 1981-608; Underwood v. Commissioner, 535 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1976), affg. 63 T.C. 468, 475-476 (1975); Perry v. Commissioner, 392 F.2d 458, 461 (8th Cir. 1968), affg. 47 T.C. 159 (1966); Raynor v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 762, 770-771 (1968); Borg v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 257, 264-26......
  • Spencer v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • February 9, 1998
    ...obligation. Raynor v. Commissioner, supra at 770–771; see also Perry v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 159, 164, 1966 WL 1325 (1966), affd. 392 F.2d 458 (8th Cir.1968) (there is nothing in the statutory wording, nor the regulations, nor the committee reports which warrants an inference that a shareh......
  • Maloof v. Commissioner, Docket No. 15211-02.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • April 6, 2005
    ...[Dec. 31,583], 59 T.C. 172 (1972); Perry v. Commissioner [Dec. 30,176], 54 T.C. 1293, 1296 (1970), affd. [71-2 USTC ¶ 9502] 392 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1971); Raynor v. Commissioner [Dec. 29,103], 50 T.C. 762, 770-771 (1968); Horne v. Commissioner [Dec. 14,610], 5 T.C. 250, 254 Against this back......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Creation of S Corporation Basis Through Shareholder Guarantees
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 16-6, June 1987
    • Invalid date
    ...1. Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 1366(d) (1986). 2. See, e.g., Brown v. Comm'r, 706 F.2d 755 (6th Cir. 1983); Perry v. Comm'r, 392 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1968); Wheat v. United States, 353 F.Supp. 720 (S.D.Tex. 1973); Neal v. United States, 313 F.Supp. 393 (C.D.Cal. 1970); Borg v. Comm'r, 50 ......
  • Sec. 465 traps for the unsuspecting S corporation shareholder.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 41 No. 7, July 2010
    • July 1, 2010
    ...(3) Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.465-23(a). (4) Riggs, T.C. Memo. 1992-323; Berger, T.C. Memo. 1994-298. (5) Perry, 47 T.C. 159 (1966), aff'd, 392 F.2d 458 (8th Cir. 1968); Raynor, 50 T.C. 762 (6) Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.465-25(b)(1)(i). (7) Sec. 465(b)(6)(B). (8) Sec. 465(b)(6)(D), referencing Sec. 49(a)......

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