Berkley v. Gavin
Decision Date | 25 July 2000 |
Docket Number | (SC 16142) |
Citation | 253 Conn. 761,756 A.2d 248 |
Parties | WILLIAM R. BERKLEY ET AL. v. GENE GAVIN, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Sullivan, and Vertefeuille, Js.1 Charles H. Lenore, with whom was Eric R. Jones, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Robert L. Klein, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiffs, William Berkley and Marjorie Berkley, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the assessment by the defendant, the commissioner of revenue services, against the plaintiffs of an additional $393,263.01 in state income taxes for the 1994 taxable year. The principal issues in this appeal are: (1) whether the federal tax benefit rule is incorporated into the definition of "adjusted gross income" contained in General Statutes § 12-701 (a) (19);2 and (2) if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim a deduction under the tax benefit rule due to the pass-through of certain losses incurred by subchapter S corporations of which William Berkley was a shareholder, even though the plaintiffs previously had avoided paying $1,297,189.63 in Connecticut capital gains, dividends and interest taxes as a result of those same passed-through losses.
We conclude that the federal tax benefit rule is incorporated into the definition of adjusted gross income contained in § 12-701 (a) (19). We further conclude that the plaintiffs had already received a tax benefit due to the aforementioned losses by virtue of the resultant reduction in their 1988, 1989, and 1990 federal adjusted gross income, which allowed them to avoid paying $1,297,189.63 in Connecticut capital gains, dividends and interest taxes. Therefore, they were not entitled to claim such a benefit a second time on their 1994 Connecticut income tax return. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The parties in this case have stipulated to the following relevant facts. The plaintiffs are a married couple residing in Greenwich. William Berkley was a shareholder in three S corporations:3 Farm Acquisition Corporation (Farm Acquisition), Interlaken Grove Investors, Inc. (Interlaken Grove), and Caring Communities, Inc. (Caring Communities). Two of those corporations, Farm Acquisition and Caring Communities, reported ordinary losses on their 1988, 1989, and 1990 federal income tax returns and the third corporation, Interlaken Grove, reported ordinary losses on its 1989 and 1990 tax returns. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1366 (a) (1),4 the plaintiffs deducted William Berkley's pro rata share of the losses reported by Farm Acquisition and Caring Communities on their federal income tax returns for those three years, and his pro rata share of the losses reported by Interlaken Grove for the 1989 and 1990 tax years. William Berkley's bases in the stock of those three corporations then was reduced by the amount of the deductions. See 26 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (2).
During 1988, 1989 and 1990, Connecticut imposed a tax on capital gains, dividends and interest income (capital gains tax) pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-505 through 12-522, but did not tax any other income. For each of those years, the tax rates on capital gains, dividends and interest income were tied to the taxpayer's federal adjusted gross income.5 If, however, a taxpayer's federal adjusted gross income fell below a certain level, that taxpayer had no obligation to pay Connecticut's capital gains tax.
As a result of the losses passed through the three S corporations in which William Berkley was a shareholder, the plaintiffs' federal adjusted gross income for the tax years 1988, 1989 and 1990 was negative. Accordingly, the plaintiffs paid no state capital gains tax for those three years. If the plaintiffs' federal adjusted gross income for those years had not been reduced by their deduction of the pass-through losses from the three S corporations, the plaintiffs would have owed a total of $1,297;189.63 in state capital gains taxes for those three years.
For the 1994 tax year, the plaintiffs reported "worthless stock" losses for federal income tax purposes with respect to William Berkley's stock in all three S corporations. At that time, his bases in the stock of the three S corporations had been reduced to $3,623,671. The federal tax code allowed the plaintiffs to deduct the adjusted bases of $3,623,671 from their 1994 long-term capital gains reported in their 1994 federal income tax return. The plaintiffs' federal adjusted gross income for the 1994 tax year was $8,342,817.
In October, 1995, the plaintiffs timely filed a "Form CT-1040 Connecticut Resident Income Tax Return" for the 1994 tax year, on which they reported an overpayment of $496,123. In computing their 1994 Connecticut taxable income, the plaintiffs subtracted from their federal adjusted gross income of $8,342,817, the sum of $9,743,387, representing the aggregate reductions to the bases of the stock held by William Berkley in the three S corporations in 1988, 1989 and 1990. The plaintiffs subsequently agreed to limit the contested basis adjustment to $6,541,489, representing the total basis adjustment excluding depreciation and amortization.6 If the plaintiffs' deduction of the basis adjustment from the Connecticut basis in William Berkley's S corporation stock in computing their Connecticut adjusted gross income for 1994 were permissible, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a refund of $294,367, plus interest, for the 1994 tax year.
In addition, the record reveals the following other relevant facts. In February, 1996, the defendant notified the plaintiffs of a proposed recalculation of their 1994 Connecticut income tax, under which the defendant intended to assess against the plaintiffs an additional liability of $393,263.01. In April, 1996, the defendant sent a notice of the additional assessment to the plaintiffs. On May 17, 1996, the plaintiffs appealed the defendant's assessment to the Tax Session of the Superior Court.
The trial court issued a written memorandum of decision in favor of the defendant. In that memorandum, the trial court initially concluded that "[t]he tax benefit rule is alive and well in Connecticut." The trial court further concluded, however, that Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court, and we granted the defendant's motion to transfer the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-2.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that, although the trial court properly concluded that the federal tax benefit rule applies to Connecticut's personal income tax, the trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs' S corporation losses could not be excluded, pursuant to the tax benefit rule, from the plaintiffs' Connecticut adjusted gross income. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in both respects.
At the outset, a brief explanation of the federal tax benefit rule is warranted. The tax benefit rule is Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 460 U.S. 370, 377-79, 103 S. Ct. 1134, 75 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1983).
The tax benefit rule may be illustrated further by the following hypothetical example: If a taxpayer is owed $100 in connection with his trade or business and the debtor fails to pay the debt when it is due, the taxpayer may deduct the $100 loss as a bad debt. See 26 U.S.C. § 166 (a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commission on Human Rights v. BD. OF EDUC.
...... of this court's statements that legislative silence may express a concurrence with an agency's interpretation of existing law; see, e.g., Berkley v. Gavin, 253 Conn. 761, 786, 756 A.2d 248 (2000) ("[w]hen the legislature is aware of an agency's interpretation of a statute and is silent ......
-
Estate of Brooks v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs., SC 19577
......At first blush, our holding in Berkley v. Gavin , 253 Conn. 761, 772–75, 756 A.2d 248 (2000), would appear to strongly support the plaintiffs' position in the present case. In ......
-
Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission
......See, e.g., Berkley v. Gavin, 253 Conn. 761, 774, 756 A.2d 248 (2000) . Thus, if the claimed intervention rests on a premise that is simply so attenuated in its ......
-
Birkhold v. Birkhold
......"An S corporation is a small business corporation that qualifies for certain tax and financial prerogatives." Berkley v. Gavin , 253 Conn. 761, 763 n.3, 756 A.2d 248 (2000). In an S corporation, "all of its capital gains and losses, for federal income tax ......
-
2000 Connecticut Appellate Review
...A.2d 1 (2000). 45 253 Conn. 183, 757 A.2d 1052 (2000). 46 253 Conn. 381, 752 A.2d 503 (2000). 47 252 Conn. 753, 749 A.2d 1173 (2000). 48 253 Conn. 761, 756 A.2d 248 (2000). 49 254 Conn. 789, 760 A.2d 1257 (2000). 50 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 9-323. 51 One hundred fifteen of these decisions (approx......
-
2017 Developments in Connecticut Estate and Probate Law
...purposes at the wife's death. [45] The Court indirectly considered this argument when discussing the case of Berkley v. Gavin, 253 Conn. 761, 772-75, 756 A.2d 248 (2000), a case relied upon by the plaintiffs. Berkley considered the question of whether a taxpayer must include the recovery of......
-
2000 Connecticut Tax Law Developments
...§ 1 (Reg. Sess.). 36 Id. § 10 (Reg. Sess.). 37 P.A. 00-170, §§ 27 & 28 (Reg. Sess.), amending CONN. GEN. STAT. § 12-81(59) & (60). 38 253 Conn. 761, 756 A.2d 248 (2000). 39 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 12-701(a)(19). 40 See Bello v. Commissioner, 11 Conn. L. Rptr. 339 (May 23, 1994). 41 CONN. GEN. ST......
-
2001 Connecticut Tax Law Developments
...is less than 90 days, the period for withholding and paying over is 45 days. 20 Id. §§ 35, 36, applicable to all open tax periods. 21 253 Conn. 761 (2000). 22 John R. Shaughnessy, Jr. and Richard W. Tomeo, 2000 Connecticut Tax Law Developments, 75 Conn. B.J. 1, 7-8 (2001). 23 Note the expli......