SMITH ELECTRIC COMPANY v. United States
Decision Date | 16 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 474-69.,474-69. |
Citation | 461 F.2d 790,198 Ct. Cl. 644 |
Parties | SMITH ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. v. The UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Herman H. Copelon, New Haven, Conn., attorney of record, for plaintiffs; Copelon & Schiff, New Haven, Conn., of counsel.
Robert N. Dorosin, with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Scott P. Crampton, for defendant; Philip R. Miller, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before COWEN, Chief Judge, and DAVIS, SKELTON, NICHOLS, KASHIWA, and KUNZIG, Judges.
This case is before us on a stipulation of facts. Plaintiff is suing for the recovery of Federal Income taxes for the years 1957 and 1958 in the respective amounts of $5,738.01 and $10,960.19, plus interest.
The sole issue in this case is whether the special seven-year statute of limitations,1 with respect to filing claims for refund on account of the deductibility of a worthless debt, is applicable to taxpayers on the reserve method as well as to those on the direct charge-off method.
Plaintiff is an accrual basis taxpayer who utilizes the reserve method of treating bad debts. In 1960, plaintiff properly added $81,943.79 to its reserve for bad debts. The largest part of that deduction was brought about by a single worthless note ($80,050) which was charged against the reserve account during the year.
On March 11, 1966, plaintiff filed claims for refund for the taxable years 1957 and 1958 arising out of a net operating loss in 1960 due to that bad debt deduction. These claims were disallowed by the Commissioner on November 15, 1967, on the ground that they were not filed within the three-year limitation period of Section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.2 Plaintiff filed his petition in this court on November 10, 1969.
Under the reserve method a taxpayer is allowed to deduct each year a reasonable addition to the reserve for bad debts. The taxpayer may not, in addition to the reserve, take a deduction for specific debts. See Rogan v. Commercial Discount Co., 149 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1945). However, specific debts which become worthless during the taxable year are chargeable against the reserve. See Calavo, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 304 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1962). This indirectly results in a higher bad debt deduction because the reasonable addition to the reserve is the amount necessary to bring the balance in the reserve to its proper level. The ultimate question is always "whether the balance in the reserve at the end of the year is adequate to cover the expected worthlessness on outstanding debts * * *." Roanoke Vending Exchange, Inc., 40 T.C. 735 (1963). See also R. Gsell & Co., 34 T.C. 41, 56 (1960); Platt Trailer Co., Inc., 23 T.C. 1065 (1955).
It should be noted that a specific debt cannot be taken into account, even in this indirect manner, unless it becomes worthless during that particular taxable year. Calavo, Inc. 19 CCH Tax Ct.Mem. 1359 (1960), rev'd on other grounds, 304 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1962); New York Water Service Corp., 12 T.C. 780 (1949); William Purvin, 6 T.C. 21 (1946). The reserve level is usually determined either by past experience or by a current evaluation of the accounts receivable and is computed as a percentage of sales or receivables.
Section 6511(d) provides:
The reason for this special statute of limitations with respect to bad debts was enunciated in the Committee Report to the Revenue Act of 1942. (Section 322(b) (5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was the predecessor section to Section 6511(d) (1) and was added by Section 169(a) of the Revenue Act of 1942, c. 619, 56 Stat. 798.) H.R. Rep. No. 2333, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 44-45 (1942-2 Cum.Bull. 372, 408).
It is necessary for the taxpayer to determine the proper reserve level at the end of each taxable year. Estimates which are reasonably made at that time may not be increased in light of subsequent events. Farmville Oil and Fertilizer Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 78 F.2d 83, 85 (4th Cir. 1935). See also Wengel, Inc. v. United States, 306 F.Supp. 121 (E.D.Mich.1969); Consolidated Dry Goods Co. v. United States, 35 F.Supp. 523 (D.Mass.1940); Rio Grande Building and Loan Assoc., 36 T.C. 657 (1961). Otherwise taxpayer would be able to go back and increase his reserve on account of debts which went bad in subsequent years, thereby deducting them by way of the reserve in a year prior to the one in which they became worthless. Farmville Oil and Fertilizer Co., supra.
Taxpayer, must, however, be able to go back and correct the year in which he charged wholly worthless debts against the reserve.3 The reason for the difference in treatment is because "debts may not be charged off against the reserve until they have become worthless." Calavo, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 304 F.2d at 654. Both taxpayers using the direct charge-off method and those utilizing the reserve method must charge-off specific debts in the year they become worthless. Those on the reserve method charge the debts against the reserve account rather than directly against income. Both taxpayers, however, are equally vulnerable to being whipsawed by having the Commissioner disallow in year 5 a debt which was charged off (against income or reserve) in year 2, on the grounds that it went bad in year 1. We feel that Section 6511(d) granted the seven-year statute of limitations to both taxpayers since the whipsaw problem afflicts them both equally.
Defendant contends that a taxpayer under the reserve method can support his addition to his reserve by relying on past...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ambase Corp. v. United States
...1550, 26 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970). This increases the Reasonable Addition otherwise allowable for the year. See Smith Elec. Co. v. United States, 198 Ct.Cl. 644, 461 F.2d 790, 791 (1972). Similarly, in any year in which a bad debt is recovered, specific charge-off method taxpayers include the recov......
- Cason v. United States
-
Indiana Nat. Corp. v. US, IP88-277-C.
...a NOL. The plaintiffs challenge Armstrong as inconsistent with another decision by the Court of Claims in Smith Electric Co. v. United States, 461 F.2d 790, 198 Ct.Cl. 644 (1972).5 The plaintiffs refer to the Brief for the United States in establishing that the situation of the Smith Electr......
-
Winter & Hirsch, Inc. v. US
...during the current taxable year, from the current taxable year's ending bad debts reserve balance. See Smith Electric Co. v. United States, 461 F.2d 790, 791, 198 Ct.Cl. 644, 646 (1972); Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 30.69 et seq. (Doheny In this case the parties differ over th......