Kean v. CIR

Citation469 F.2d 1183
Decision Date18 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 24843-24848.,24843-24848.
PartiesHarold C. & Margaret I. KEAN, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Inga L. BARDAHL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Ole BARDAHL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Murdock D. & Mary Ellen MacPHERSON, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. William R. & Dorothy L. MacPHERSON, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. C. E. MILAM & Verda Milam, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gerald R. Hergert (argued), Joseph H. Trethewey, Seattle, Wash., for appellants.

Paul M. Ginsburg (argued), K. Martin Worthy, Chief Counsel, Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before HAMLEY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., District Judge.*

WM. MATTHEW BYRNE, Jr., District Judge:

Appellants, petitioners in the Tax Court, were shareholders in Ocean Shores Bowl, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Bowl, a Washington corporation. They appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court, 51 T.C. 337, invalidating Bowl's election under Subchapter S, §§ 1371-1379 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and disallowing petitioners' deductions on their personal tax returns of their pro rata shares of Bowl's 1962 and 1963 net operating losses.

Bowl was formed on March 20, 1962 and had only one class of stock issued and outstanding. On October 30, 1962 Bowl filed a timely election to be taxed as a small business corporation pursuant to § 1372 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Consents to such election were contemporaneously filed by all of the shareholders of record and their wives. As a result of the election, Bowl's net operating losses of $15,316 for the short taxable year 1962 and $56,638.28 for 1963 were deducted in pro rata shares by petitioners on their 1962 and 1963 personal income tax returns.

Some Bowl debentures and 125 shares of Bowl stock were held in the name of petitioner, William MacPherson. He and his brother, petitioner Murdock MacPherson, were engaged in the real estate business in a company called MacPhersons, Inc. Each brother owned 45% of the stock of MacPhersons, Inc. with the remaining 10% being held by their mother. William and Murdock MacPherson had many joint investments which were conducted without any written agreement. Whoever initiated the investment would normally be responsible for its management. Neither held a power of attorney for the other. The books and records of MacPhersons, Inc. were maintained by its employee, Donald Minkler.

On their 1962 joint income tax return William MacPherson and his wife deducted the net operating loss of Bowl accruing to the 125 shares in William's name. In 1963 William MacPherson and his wife deducted one half of the net operating loss for that year attributed to said shares while Murdock MacPherson and his wife deducted the other one half on their joint return. In 1964 the William MacPhersons and the Murdock MacPhersons each reported the sale of one half of the 125 shares of Bowl stock and one half of the Bowl debentures. All of these returns were prepared by Donald Minkler.

A 1965 Internal Revenue Service audit disclosed that the 125 shares of Bowl stock and Bowl debentures, issued to William MacPherson in 1962, were purchased with a MacPhersons, Inc. check. The cost of the purchase was charged on the books of MacPhersons, Inc. equally against the drawing accounts of William and Murdock. Murdock MacPherson has never been repaid by William MacPherson for the amounts taken out of his drawing account to pay for the stock and debentures.

Murdock MacPherson was not a shareholder of record of Bowl. Neither he nor his wife were mentioned in the Subchapter S election filed with the Internal Revenue Service in October, 1962; nor did they file a consent to the election. None of the other shareholders knew that Murdock MacPherson was involved in any way with Bowl until the 1965 audit.

The Tax Court held that Bowl's Subchapter S election was invalid because Murdock MacPherson, as a beneficial owner of Bowl stock, was a shareholder within the meaning of § 1372 and had not consented to the corporation's election. Based on this finding, the court disallowed petitioners' deduction of their pro rata shares of the corporation's net operating losses.

Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 allows a small business corporation, as defined by § 1371, to elect to be exempt from corporate income taxes with the consequence that its shareholders are taxed directly on the corporation's earnings or may deduct the corporation's losses. Section 1372 provides that the corporation's election is "valid only if all persons who are shareholders . . . consent to such election."

Petitioners contend that since Murdock MacPherson was not a shareholder of record and was not able to exercise any rights as a shareholder under Washington law, he was not a "shareholder" under § 1372. We disagree. The question of who is a shareholder as the term is used in Subchapter S must be determined by federal rather than state law. Putnam's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 324 U.S. 393, 65 S.Ct. 811, 89 L.Ed. 1023 (1945); Morgan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 309 U.S. 78, 60 S.Ct. 424, 84 L.Ed. 585 (1940); Old Virginia Brick Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 367 F.2d 276 (4th Cir. 1966). Treasury Regulation § 1.1371-1(d) (1), implementing Subchapter S, states that "Ordinarily, the persons who would have to include in gross income dividends distributed with respect to the stock of the corporation are considered to be shareholders of the corporation."

Petitioners challenge the validity of this regulation on the ground that it has no statutory basis and is in conflict with the legislative history. They rely on a portion of the report of the Senate Finance Committee discussing Subchapter S which stated:

"An election may be made to supply the tax treatment provided by this new subchapter only if all of the shareholders consent to this election. For this purpose the shareholders are those of record as of the first day of the taxable year in question, or if the election is made after that time, shareholders of record when the election is made."
S.Rep. No. 1900, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 87.

The Tax Court in Alfred N. Hoffman, 47 T.C. 218, 235 (1966), aff'd sub nom. Hoffman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 391 F.2d 930 (5th Cir. 1968), in considering the contention that a shareholder of record rather than the beneficial owner of the stock must consent to the Subchapter S election, discussed the report of the Senate Finance Committee as follows:

"While this use of the words `of record\' furnishes some support for petitioner\'s position, it is entirely inconsistent with the basic congressional purpose to tax the undistributed corporate income only to the persons who are accountable for dividends paid by the corporation, and those persons are the real owners of the stock whether or not they are the shareholders `of record.\' In the circumstances, we must rely upon the all pervasive legislative purpose and not upon the foregoing fragmentary phrase in the committee report."

Subchapter S allows shareholders of a small business corporation to elect alternative tax consequences resulting from stock ownership. Without a Subchapter S election the corporation is liable for corporate taxes, the shareholders cannot deduct corporate losses, and only distributed dividends are subject to the personal income tax. If the election is made, the corporation is exempt from corporate taxes and the shareholders may deduct corporate net operating losses but must pay personal income tax on all corporate income whether distributed or not. The desirability of a Subchapter S election depends upon the individual tax considerations of each shareholder. The final determination of whether there is to be an election should be made by those who would suffer the tax consequences of it. Therefore, "shareholders" who must file a consent are not necessarily "shareholders of record" but rather beneficial owners of shares "who would have to include in gross income dividends distributed with respect to the stock of the corporation." Treas.Reg. § 1.1371-1(d) (1), Alfred N. Hoffman, supra.

A treasury regulation which supplies the definition that Congress omitted must be sustained unless unreasonable and obviously inconsistent with the statute. Bingler v. Johnson, 394 U.S. 741, 89 S.Ct. 1439, 22 L.Ed.2d 695 (1969); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496, 68 S.Ct. 695, 92 L.Ed. 831 (1948). Treasury Regulation § 1.1371-1(d) (1) is consistent with the basic purpose of Subchapter S and reasonably implements the legislative mandate.

We conclude, as did the Tax Court, that William and Murdock MacPherson jointly invested in the 125 shares of Bowl stock issued to William MacPherson. Murdock MacPherson was the beneficial owner of one half of that stock in William MacPherson's name and must be considered a "shareholder" for the purpose of § 1372. Murdock MacPherson's failure to file a consent invalidates Bowl's Subchapter S election. Therefore, petitioners were not entitled to deduct their pro rata shares of Bowl's net operating loss for 1962 and 1963.

Petitioners next contend that the Tax Court erroneously drew an unfavorable inference from their failure to call Donald Minkler as a witness. Professor McCormick states,

"It is generally agreed that when a potential witness is available, and appears to have special information relevant to the case, so that his testimony would not merely be cumulative, and where his
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
100 cases
  • People v. Ford
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1988
    ... ... (Graves v. United States (1893) 150 U.S. 118, 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 41, 37 L.Ed. 1021; Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir.1972) 469 F.2d 1183, 1187-1188; People v. Coleman (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1159, 1167, 80 Cal.Rptr. 920, 459 P.2d 248.) The inference, which may be argued to the jury, is that the party who failed to produce the evidence did so because he or she knew it was ... ...
  • Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Dev., Inc. (In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 21, 2013
    ... ... Because [t]he desirability of a Subchapter S election depends on the individual tax considerations of each shareholder[,] [t]he final determination of whether there is to be an election should be made by those who would suffer the tax consequences of it. Kean v. Comm'r, 469 F.2d 1183, 1187 (9th Cir.1972). TransLines West was correct in that regard. It acknowledged that [a] corporation's election and revocation of the S corporation status under I.R.C. 1362 is shareholder driven, and [a]lthough the corporation is the sole entity that makes the ... ...
  • Boggs v. Commissioner
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • August 15, 1985
    ...Court Dec. 28,483(M); Kean v. Commissioner Dec. 29,260, 51 T. C. 337, 343-344 (1968), affd. on this point 72-2 USTC ¶ 9764 469 F. 2d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1972). In light of the nature of petitioner's "evidence" pertaining to the Lucas relationship, consisting entirely of petitioner's self-s......
  • Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • February 15, 1985
    ... ... Kean v. Commissioner, 469 F.2d 1183, 1187 (9th Cir.1972) ( quoting, McCormick, Evidence § 249, p. 534 (1954)). On analysis, then, if it be proven that a witness was within the control of a particular party only, then a fact has been proven which as a matter of logical deduction gives rise to the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Evidence Foundations Other Evidence Rules
    • May 5, 2019
    ...the failure of a party to introduce evidence which is available and in its possession. Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service , 469 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1972). An adverse inference may be drawn by a party’s failure to call a witness , but only if the evidence is not cumulative; if ......
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2015 Contents
    • July 31, 2015
    ...failure of a party to introduce evidence which is available and in its possession. Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Ser-vice , 469 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1972). An adverse inference may be drawn by a party’s failure to call a witness , but only if the evidence is not cumulative; if a w......
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...failure of a party to introduce evidence which is available and in its possession. Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Ser-vice , 469 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1972). An adverse inference may be drawn by a party’s failure to call a witness , but only if the evidence is not cumulative; if a w......
  • Other evidence rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...the failure of a party to introduce evidence which is available and in its possession. Kean v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service , 469 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1972). An adverse inference may be drawn by a party’s failure to call a witness , but only if the evidence is not cumulative; if ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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