T.C. Memo. 1996-304
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ZAHIRUDEEN PREMJI AND CAROL M. PREMJI, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
CARL JOHN NORBY, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 8372-94, 10353-94. Filed July 3, 1996.
Declan J. O'Donnell, for petitioners.
Virginia L. Hamilton, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON, Judge: In these consolidated cases respondent
determined the following deficiencies in petitioners' Federal
income taxes:
- 2 -
Petitioners Docket No. Year Deficiency
Zahirudeen and
Carol M. Premji 8372-94 1990 $ 18,501
Carl John Norby 10353-94 1990 $ 15,959
In an Amendment to Answer filed in docket No. 8372-94 respondent
asserted an increased deficiency of $4,448 based on the
allegation that petitioners Premji failed to report interest
income of $29,329 actually or constructively received in 1990.
Petitioners and respondent have made concessions with respect to
the amount of the interest income received by the Premjis, and
those concessions should be reflected in the computations for
entry of the decision.
The primary issue in both of these cases is whether
petitioners Premji and Norby are entitled to theft loss
deductions in 1990 resulting from their investment of funds with
M&L Business Machine Company, Inc., which, through its officers
and shareholders, operated a ponzi scheme. The resolution of
this issue depends on whether there existed a reasonable prospect
of recovery in that year.
Secondary issues in the Premji case are whether petitioners
constructively received certain amounts of interest income in
1990 and whether certain amounts of interest actually received in
1990 constitute taxable income to them in that year.
- 3 -
Unless otherwise stated, all section references herein are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1990, and all rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts, supplemental stipulation of facts, and
attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
At the time they filed their petitions in these cases,
Zahirudeen Premji (Mr. Premji), and Carol M. Premji, and Carl
John Norby (Mr. Norby), resided in Boulder, Colorado.
Mr. Premji and Mr. Norby invested funds in M&L Business
Machine Company, Inc. (M&L).
M&L Business Machine Company, Inc.
M&L was a closely held Colorado corporation formed in the
1970's to repair office machines and business equipment. During
the 1980's, Robert Joseph, Daniel Hatch, and David Parrish
acquired all of M&L's stock. Thereafter, M&L was used to operate
a ponzi scheme.1 M&L also continued to repair office machines
and business equipment, but that activity generated little
income.
The M&L ponzi scheme collected funds from investors. In
return, M&L promised investors exceptionally high interest rates.
1
The first ponzi scheme surfaced in 1920, instigated by
Charles Ponzi. It is the subject of Cunningham v. Brown, 265
U.S. 1 (1924).
- 4 -
Investors were told that the funds were used to purchase business
equipment for resale. No equipment was purchased. Instead,
funds obtained from later investors were used to pay early
investors their promised interest rates. Later investors often
received no payments.
All of M&L's equipment, inventory, accounts, chattel paper,
and general intangibles were subject to a security agreement,
dated September 11, 1989, in favor of Capitol Federal Savings and
Loan (Capitol Federal). Subsequently, when the Resolution Trust
Corporation (RTC) was appointed Capitol Federal's receiver, RTC
succeeded to Capitol Federal's security interest.
On October 1, 1990, M&L filed a petition with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C sec. 701 (1994). The
Chapter 7 filing was due to a clerical error, and the case was
converted to a Chapter 11 proceeding on October 9, 1990. 11
U.S.C. sec. 1101 (1994).
M&L notified private investors by letter dated October 4,
1990, that it had filed the bankruptcy petition ostensibly to
prevent RTC from seizing the assets covered by the September 1989
security interest. M&L sent private investors a second letter
dated October 30, 1990, purporting to inform them as to M&L's
status and indicating that M&L would shortly obtain a loan from a
European lender, Manns Haggerskjold, which would enable M&L to
remove itself from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. In
- 5 -
fact, there was no loan commitment from Manns Haggerskjold. Both
letters contained additional false representations, notably that
M&L's assets exceeded liabilities.
M&L filed original bankruptcy schedules on October 25, 1990,
and an amendment on November 15, 1990. Both the original
schedules and the amendment falsely showed that assets exceeded
liabilities.2
At some point not specified in the record, the Colorado
Division of Securities began to investigate M&L's operations. As
a result of its investigation, on December 3, 1990, the Colorado
Securities Commissioner filed an ex parte motion to oust M&L as
debtor in possession and to have a trustee appointed.3 In
support of the ex parte motion, the Securities Commissioner
alleged the following: (1) M&L executed a security interest in
2
M&L's Oct. 25, 1990, bankruptcy schedules listed assets
in the amount of $29,865,909 and liabilities in the amount of
$5,505,875. These schedules also state that M&L had promissory
note obligations to numerous private investors that were not
listed due to claimed lack of information. The Nov. 15, 1990,
amendment lists assets in the amount of $29,865,909 and
liabilities in the amount of $15,251,956. This amendment also
indicates an additional amount of unsecured claims in an unknown
amount.
On Feb. 1, 1991, M&L filed another amendment to its
bankruptcy schedules. This amendment also falsely showed assets
in excess of liabilities. In July or August 1991, Christine J.
Jobin, the bankruptcy trustee, filed a further amendment adding
unsecured creditors.
3
The Securities Commissioner's motion was captioned Motion
for Ex Parte Order Allowing Appointment of Trustee, or for
Expedited Hearing.
- 6 -
the same assets to more than one creditor; (2) M&L gave its
bookkeeper false information regarding payees of M&L checks; (3)
M&L falsely claimed that its books and records had been audited
by a certified public accountant named Jonathan Williams;4 and
(4) M&L falsely claimed to have obtained a $15 million loan
commitment from Manns Haggerskjold. The Securities Commissioner
concluded that M&L's conduct was "replete with facts indicating
fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, and gross mismanagement of its
affairs, all to the detriment of the estate creditors and past,
present, and future investors". The Securities Commissioner
concluded that this conduct would continue to the detriment of
creditors' interests. The Securities Commissioner's ex parte
motion was made part of the bankruptcy file.
On December 10, 1990, RTC joined the Securities
Commissioner's ex parte motion and further alleged that M&L's
conduct demonstrated its pattern of defrauding everyone who
crossed its financial path, including the Bankruptcy Court.5
RTC's motion was made part of the bankruptcy file.
On December 18, 1990, the Bankruptcy Court granted the
Securities Commissioner's motion and Christine J. Jobin (Ms.
4
By affidavit attached to the Securities Commissioner's ex
parte motion and made part of the record in this proceeding,
Jonathan Williams expressly denied any participation in the
preparation of M&L audit reports.
5
RTC's motion is captioned Joinder by RTC in Motion for Ex
Parte Order Allowing Appointment of Trustee.
- 7 -
Jobin), was appointed as Chapter 11 trustee. Ms. Jobin is an
attorney who has dealt with bankruptcy matters for 13 years.
On or about December 18, 1990, Ms. Jobin met with members of
the Colorado Division of Securities and was informed of M&L's
alleged fraud and misconduct. She also received a copy of M&L's
bank records for late 1989 and 1990. In 1990, after reviewing
M&L's bank records, Ms. Jobin believed that M&L was operating a
check-kiting scheme.
Ms. Jobin also met with Robert Joseph, M&L's president, on
or about December 18, 1990. Ms. Jobin thought that Mr. Joseph
was not telling her the truth and that the Securities
Commissioner's fraud and misconduct allegations were accurate.
She also discovered that Mr. Joseph could not document M&L
receivables claimed to be $13 million to $15 million.
Between December 18, 1990, and February 2, 1991, Ms. Jobin's
suspicions as to the legitimacy of M&L's operations increased and
she continued to investigate its affairs. During that time
period, she received some information that M&L's inventory of
computers might be paving bricks packaged to resemble computers.
However, at the end of 1990, Ms. Jobin was hopeful that M&L's
unsecured creditors would recover something from the bankruptcy
estate.
On February 2, 1991, Ms. Jobin personally went to M&L's
warehouse and opened a box that was to have contained computer
inventory. She found that the box contained only paving bricks
- 8 -
covered with hardened foam and dirt. She then concluded that M&L
was a ponzi scheme and that it had no inventory assets from which
creditors' claims could be satisfied. On February 4, 1991, she
halted the ponzi scheme.
Ms. Jobin continued to operate M&L's business machine repair
service in the hope of generating assets for creditors. It did
not perform as she hoped, and she ceased its operation in March
1991.
When Ms. Jobin discovered that M&L had no inventory in
February 1991, she believed that the only recovery for M&L
creditors would be through adversary proceedings based on the
legal theories of preferential transfers or fraudulent
conveyances. See 11 U.S.C. secs. 547 and 548 (1994). M&L's
assets were then valued at less than $100,000 and were encumbered
by RTC's security interest.
On September 26, 1991, M&L's bankruptcy case was converted
to Chapter 7.
Approximately 1,600 investors were involved in M&L's ponzi
scheme. Ms. Jobin estimated that about 540 of these investors
received promised interest payments. In September 1992, she
began filing adversary proceedings against some of these 540
- 9 -
investors to recover assets.6 She filed additional proceedings
in September 1993.
At the time Ms. Jobin filed the adversary proceedings
against M&L's investors in 1992, there was little case law on
point within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of
Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Nonetheless, by June 1995, she had
collected approximately $8.5 million for the bankruptcy estate.
She anticipated collecting a total of $14 million at the
conclusion of all proceedings. Ms. Jobin estimated that
unsecured creditors would recover approximately 30 percent of
their claims and that distributions to unsecured creditors would
probably be made by the end of 1996.
Petitioners Zahirudeen and Carol M. Premji
The Premjis are husband and wife who filed a joint Federal
income tax return for the year 1990 on which they reported a
theft loss of $58,000 from their investment in M&L.
Mr. Premji has a degree in mechanical engineering and is a
systems engineer. He is not an accountant or financial analyst.
Mr. Premji learned about M&L from Scott Brayer, a friend of
a neighbor. He knew that Mr. Brayer had invested in M&L for
several years and thought his lifestyle supported his claimed M&L
earnings. Several other individuals, including Karen Marx and
6
Ms. Jobin was delayed in filing these proceedings because
M&L's records had been removed from its offices. The records
were recovered pursuant to a search warrant and made available to
her in July 1992.
- 10 -
Tom Bird, also appeared to Mr. Premji to have made considerable
sums from their investments in M&L over a long period of time.
In July or August of 1990, Mr. Premji reviewed a book that
Mr. Brayer gave him explaining M&L's programs, finances, and the
equipment M&L claimed to sell. Mr. Brayer told him that M&L was
soliciting investors to finance its purchase of used fax machines
for resale to a private company in Russia. Mr. Premji understood
he could obtain a 10 percent return every 8 days (456 percent
annually) if he invested in M&L. He did not speak with a
representative of M&L.
Based on newspaper reports of returns on real estate
transactions in Central City, Colorado, and on his experiences
growing up in Tanzania, Africa, Mr. Premji thought there were
legitimate ways for an investor to receive an annual return of
456 percent. He concluded that an investment in M&L would be a
reasonable investment. Therefore, he invested a total of $58,000
in M&L as follows:
Date Amount
July 31, 1990 $20,000
August 30, 1990 4,000
September 5, 1990 14,000
September 13, 1990 20,000
$58,000
He gave Mr. Brayer cashier's checks for the amounts listed above
and Mr. Brayer delivered them to M&L.
During August 1990, Mr. Premji received four checks from M&L
in the amount of $2,000 each that represented promised interest
- 11 -
payments. The checks were dated August 6, August 14, August 22,
and August 30, 1990, and were drawn on M&L's account with the
Bank of Boulder. Each time he received an interest check, Mr.
Premji also received a $20,000 check representing his current
principal balance.
Mr. Premji cashed the four $2,000 checks at the Bank of
Boulder in August 1990. He did not report the $8,000 as interest
income received for that year. He did not cash the $20,000
checks. Instead, he returned them to M&L.
On two occasions Bank of Boulder personnel refused to cash
the checks because they were postdated. Mr. Premji was told to
return in a day or two. He did so and was able to cash the
checks.
Mr. Premji received six additional checks from M&L as
follows:
Check Number Amount Date Issued
100416 $64,440 9/23/90
100417 6,444 9/23/90
94062 70,884 10/1/90
94063 7,088 10/1/90
96092 77,972 10/9/90
96093 7,797 10/9/90
The checks for $64,440, $70,884, and $77,972 represented Mr.
Premji's total principal advanced to M&L as of the date of the
check. The checks for $6,444, $7,088, and $7,797 represented his
ten percent interest on that principal as of the date of each
check.
- 12 -
Mr. Premji did not obtain cash for any of the above-listed
checks. He voluntarily returned the September 23 and October 1,
1990, principal and interest checks to M&L to maintain and
increase his investment.7 He attempted to cash the October 9,
1990, principal and interest checks after he learned that M&L had
filed its bankruptcy petition. He was unable to do so.
Mr. Premji did not report the $6,444 and $7,088 checks as
interest income on his 1990 Federal income tax return.
Mr. Premji learned of M&L's bankruptcy filing on October 5,
1990, from Mr. Brayer. His remarks as to the status of
investors' funds struck Mr. Premji as "sketchy", and he
understood that it would be some time before the payments would
resume, if at all. Mr. Premji did not consult an attorney,
accountant, or financial analyst in 1990 after he learned that
M&L had filed the bankruptcy petition.
Mr. Premji met with Karen Marx, another M&L investor, on or
about October 9, 1990, but he did not state the content of their
conversation.
In 1990, Mr. Premji attempted to review M&L's bankruptcy
file but was unable to do so. He attended the first meeting of
M&L creditors held on or about November 30, 1990. There is no
7
By returning the larger checks representing his total
investment Mr. Premji chose not to liquidate the investment. By
returning the smaller checks, he increased the total principal
advanced to M&L.
- 13 -
evidence of the substance of the meeting. He did not speak with
Ms. Jobin, the bankruptcy trustee.
Based on M&L's October 1990 letters, his conversations with
Mr. Brayer and Karen Marx, and his attendance at the November
creditors' meeting, Mr. Premji concluded that M&L's investment
materials he had reviewed in August 1990 were not accurate. He
questioned why M&L was having difficulty securing financing if
its net worth was as claimed. He interpreted the October 1990
letters as nothing more than excuses for why money was not
available and an attempt by M&L to cover its tracks.
Consequently, he believed that the funds he had invested with M&L
would not be repaid.
Mr. Premji consulted an attorney in late February 1991. He
was told that a suit against the Bank of Boulder (Amazing
Enterprises suit) was planned and that several other
possibilities for investor recovery were being considered.
Shortly thereafter, in March 1991, he signed a retainer agreement
with the attorney's firm. As a result, Mr. Premji was one of the
68 Amazing Enterprises suit plaintiffs seeking to recover losses
from their M&L investments. The Amazing Enterprises suit was
commenced on or about July 1, 1991. It was settled in January
1993. Mr. Premji received $29,205 in settlement of his claim in
late 1994. His legal fees and costs associated with the suit
were $9,772.
- 14 -
Mr. Premji filed his 1990 Federal income tax return on April
15, 1991. Prior thereto, Mr. Premji knew of his forthcoming
involvement in the Amazing Enterprises lawsuit.
Mr. Premji filed a proof of claim in the M&L bankruptcy
proceeding on May 16, 1991.
In the notice of deficiency dated February 16, 1994,
respondent disallowed Mr. Premji's claimed theft loss of $58,000
on the ground that no deductible loss was sustained in 1990.
Petitioner Carl John Norby
Mr. Norby has a degree in mechanical engineering. He was
employed by IBM developing business machines until his retirement
a few years ago. He is not an accountant or financial analyst.
Mr. Norby invested in M&L to increase his retirement income.
Celetha Reyos, one of M&L's sales representatives, gave him M&L's
financial statements, history, resumes of the three principals,
and a description of investment programs in August 1990. After
reviewing the information, Mr. Norby and an IBM co-worker, Larry
E. Rittenhouse, met with Dale Krug, M&L's vice-president, on
September 20, 1990. Mr. Krug showed Mr. Norby and Mr.
Rittenhouse M&L's 1988 and 1989 financial statements and a
partial financial statement for 1990. Mr. Norby asked various
questions about M&L's operations, including how M&L was able to
pay investors the promised high rates of return and whether the
company had any problems. Based on the financial statements and
Mr. Krug's responses to his questions, Mr. Norby invested $50,000
- 15 -
in M&L on September 20, 1990. He received a promissory note
stating that his interest would be $3,500 per month for 12 months
(84 percent per year).
On October 2, 1990, Mr. Norby again met with Mr. Krug and
asked additional questions about M&L's operations. He did not
know and Mr. Krug did not tell him that the M&L bankruptcy
petition had been filed on October 1, 1990. Mr. Norby was
satisfied with Mr. Krug's replies that M&L was doing fine and
invested an additional $10,000 on October 2, 1990. He received a
second promissory note stating that his interest would be $700
per month for 12 months (84 percent per year).
On October 11, 1990, Ms. Reyos told Mr. Norby that M&L had
filed the bankruptcy petition. He did not receive M&L's October
4, 1990, letter and did not know about it until he received the
October 30, 1990, letter. In view of his October 2, 1991,
conversation with Mr. Krug, Mr. Norby thought both letters looked
suspicious.
Mr. Norby spoke with Ms. Reyos approximately once a week
during the remainder of 1990 in an attempt to determine what
M&L's intentions were regarding its investors. He also spoke
with Mr. Joseph, M&L's president, several times during 1990 after
he learned that M&L had filed for bankruptcy. He did not find
the information he obtained from these conversations to be
positive.
- 16 -
On or about December 27, 1990, Mr. Norby, accompanied by Mr.
Rittenhouse, reviewed M&L's bankruptcy file. He did so because
he anticipated claiming a theft loss for his M&L investment on
his 1990 Federal income tax return, and he wanted to obtain
documentation to support his claim.
Mr. Norby read and believed that the fraud allegations made
by the Colorado Securities Commissioner and RTC were true. He
discovered that the Manns Haggerskjold loan commitment M&L
professed to have secured in its October 30, 1990, letter to
investors did not exist. He also reviewed the bankruptcy
schedules. Because of Mr. Krug's failure to tell him about M&L's
bankruptcy petition on October 2, 1990, and based on his
understanding of the contents of the bankruptcy file, Mr. Norby
did not believe M&L's assets exceeded liabilities. He concluded
that his investment would not be repaid.
Mr. Norby also learned from the bankruptcy file that Ms.
Jobin had been appointed trustee, but he did not contact her. He
received two creditor's notices from Ms. Jobin and filed a proof
of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding on November 5, 1991. He
did not file a claim in 1990 because he did not believe that
there would be assets remaining after secured creditors' claims
were satisfied. He did not contact an attorney in 1990 or in
1991. He was not involved in collateral suits to recover his M&L
investment.
- 17 -
Mr. Norby sustained a loss in connection with his placement
of funds with M&L.
In the notice of deficiency dated March 15, 1994, respondent
disallowed Mr. Norby's claimed theft loss of $60,000 on the
ground that no deductible loss was sustained in 1990.
OPINION
1. Claimed Theft Loss Deductions in 1990
The parties agree that Mr. Premji and Mr. Norby sustained
theft losses.8 Sec. 165(a) and (e). They also agree that Mr.
Premji and Mr. Norby incurred losses in transactions entered into
for profit. Hence, section 165(c)(2) controls the reporting of
their theft losses. The dispute is whether deductible theft
losses were sustained in 1990.
Petitioners have the burden of proving that they are
entitled to the deductions claimed. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). This includes the burden of
proving that a deductible loss occurred in the year claimed. See
Burnet v. Houston, 283 U.S. 223, 227 (1931); Citron v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 200, 207 (1991).
The appropriate year for a loss deduction is the year in
which the loss is sustained. Sec. 165(a); sec. l.165-1(d)(1),
8
See Muncie v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 849,851 (1952)
(whether a theft occurred depends on the law of the jurisdiction
where the loss was sustained); see also Edwards v. Bromberg, 232
F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1956). The applicable provisions of the
Colorado theft statute are sections 18-4-401 and 18-4-403, Colo.
Rev. Stat. (1986 and 1995 Supp.).
- 18 -
Income Tax Regs. A theft loss is sustained during the taxable
year in which the taxpayer discovers the loss. Sec. 165(e); Sec.
1.165-1(d)(3), 1.165-8(a)(2), Income Tax Regs. The loss is not
deductible for the year in which the theft actually occurs unless
that is also the year in which the taxpayer discovers the loss.
Sec. 1.165-8(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.; see Alison v. United
States, 344 U.S. 167, 170 (1952); Marine v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
958, 976 (1989), affd. without published opinion 921 F.2d 280
(9th Cir. 1991); Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C.
795, 808 (1974), affd. 521 F.2d 786 (4th Cir. 1975).
However, if in the year the taxpayer discovers the loss
there is a claim for reimbursement for which there is a
reasonable prospect of recovery, "no portion of the loss with
respect to which reimbursement may be received is sustained, for
purposes of section 165, until the taxable year in which it can
be ascertained with reasonable certainty whether or not such
reimbursement will be received". Sec. 1.165-1(d)(3), Income Tax
Regs.
It is clear that the loss must be actual and sustained in
fact. Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 287, 291-292 (1945);
Ismert-Hincke Milling Co. v. United States, 246 F.2d 754, 757
(10th Cir. 1957); Lapin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-343,
affd. without published opinion 956 F.2d 1167 (9th Cir. 1992);
sec. 1.165-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
- 19 -
The requirement that the taxpayer's right of recovery be
considered demonstrates that a theft loss must be evidenced by a
closed and completed transaction. See Marine v. Commissioner,
supra at 980; Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Commissioner, supra at
810-811; secs. 1.165-1(d)(1), 1.165-8(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.
Whether there is a reasonable prospect of recovery is a
question of fact, determined by examining all facts and
circumstances. Sec. 1.165-1(d)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs.; see
Boehm v. Commissioner, supra at 292-293 (1945); Dawn v.
Commissioner, 675 F.2d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1982), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1979-479; Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Commissioner, supra at
811-812.
A reasonable prospect of recovery exists when the taxpayer
has a bona fide claim for recoupment from third parties or
otherwise, and when there is a substantial possibility that such
claims will be decided in the taxpayer's favor. Ramsay Scarlett
& Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 811 (citations omitted). The
taxpayer is not, however, required to be an "incorrigible
optimist", and claims with only remote or nebulous potential for
success will not postpone the deduction. United States v. White
Dental Manufacturing Co., 274 U.S. 398, 403 (1927); Ramsay
Scarlett & Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 811. Thus, the
deduction need not be postponed where the financial condition of
the party against whom the claim is filed is such that no
recovery could be expected. Jeppsen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
- 20 -
1995-342; see also Jensen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-393,
affd. without published opinion 72 F.3d 135 (9th Cir. 1995).
The standard to be applied is primarily objective, but the
taxpayer's subjective attitude and beliefs are not to be ignored.
Boehm v. Commissioner, supra at 292-293; Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 812. The standard is to be applied with
foresight. Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 811.
One of the relevant factors is whether the taxpayer has
filed a lawsuit to recoup the loss. Dawn v. Commissioner, supra
at 1078; Scofield's Estate v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 154, 159
(6th Cir. 1959), affg. in part and revg. in part 25 T.C. 774
(1956). Filing the lawsuit soon after the end of the tax year in
which the loss was claimed suggests that the taxpayer did not
consider the loss a closed and completed transaction. Dawn v.
Commissioner, supra at 1078; see also National Home Products,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 501, 525-526 (1979).
Unless litigation is speculative or without merit, where the
taxpayer deems the chance of recovery sufficiently probable to
warrant bringing a lawsuit and pursuing it with reasonable
diligence to a conclusion, the taxpayer should postpone the loss
deduction until the litigation is terminated. Scofield's Estate
v. Commissioner, supra at 159; see also Gale v. Commissioner, 41
T.C. 269, 276 (1963).
Another fact which we may consider is whether the taxpayer
ultimately recovered as a result of a lawsuit. Gale v.
- 21 -
Commissioner, supra at 276; Huey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1985-348.
However, filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding
has been held to be a ministerial act that does not require the
same degree of effort as pursuing a lawsuit. Jensen v.
Commissioner, supra.
The burden is on the taxpayer to show there was no
reasonable prospect of recovery in the year the theft loss is
claimed. Gale v. Commissioner, supra at 276.
For the reasons stated below, we hold that neither Mr.
Premji nor Mr. Norby sustained a deductible theft loss in 1990.
Both Mr. Premji and Mr. Norby contend that their theft
losses were discovered in 1990. To the contrary, respondent
contends that the losses were not discovered until 1991 when Ms.
Jobin, the trustee in bankruptcy, first ascertained that M&L was
operating an illegal ponzi scheme and that its inventory did not
exist. Regardless of the year in which the theft losses were
discovered, the crucial issue here, as we see it, is whether
petitioners had a reasonable prospect of recovery in 1990 when
they claimed the theft loss deductions. Based on the evidence
presented, we conclude that there was a reasonable prospect in
1990 that petitioners would subsequently recover some of their
losses.
Several facts support our conclusion. First, Ms. Jobin, the
trustee in bankruptcy, testified that she was "hopeful" in 1990
- 22 -
that she would be able to recover the investors' principal from
either the assets or the operations of M&L, which was then in a
Chapter 11 corporate reorganization proceeding.
Second, when Ms. Jobin discovered the ponzi scheme, she saw
other avenues for recovering assets for the bankruptcy estate.
Those avenues indeed proved fruitful. In particular, Ms. Jobin
instituted adversary proceedings against certain recipients of
M&L transfers on the basis of preferential transfers and
fraudulent conveyances. These proceedings were not filed until
September 1992, because the trustee encountered difficulties in
obtaining data pertaining to the transfers and conveyances from
M&L. As a result of these suits, the trustee had already
recovered $8.5 million for the M&L bankruptcy estate by the time
the instant cases were tried, and she estimated that
approximately $14 million will eventually be recovered. She also
estimated that the total recovery will result in the general
unsecured creditors, including petitioners, receiving about one
third of their M&L losses, probably sometime in late 1996.
Although at the end of 1990 none of the relevant information
for bringing the adversary proceedings had been obtained, this is
not the issue for Federal income tax purposes. The facts and
events which formed the bases of these adversary suits and upon
which the recovery could be based under Federal and State law
existed at the end of 1990. Therefore, the existence of such
- 23 -
claims precludes the allowance in 1990 of petitioners' deductions
for Federal income tax purposes with respect to their M&L losses.
Mr. Premji argues that case law as to some issues raised by
Ms. Jobin in the adversary proceedings was unsettled within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. We
disagree. The law was not so uncertain as to render the
prospects of success remote or nebulous or to presume that no
actual recovery could be expected. Various other courts had
decided similar issues. See Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1
(1924); In re United Energy Corp., 944 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1991);
In re Agricultural Research & Technology Group, Inc., 916 F.2d
528 (9th Cir. 1990); First Federal of Michigan v. Barrow, 878
F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1989); In re Bullion Reserve of North America,
836 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1988); Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90 (6th
Cir. 1966); Eby v. Ashley, 1 F.2d 971 (4th Cir. 1924); In re
Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc., 98 Bankr. 300 (Bankr.
N.D. Ohio 1989), affd. 974 F.2d 712 (6th Cir. 1992); In re
Independent Clearinghouse Co., 77 Bankr. 843 (D. Utah 1987).
Moreover, the trustee has been successful in the adversary
proceedings.
Mr. Premji's prospect of recovering some of his losses is
even stronger than that of Mr. Norby. Mr. Premji was one of 68
plaintiffs in the Amazing Enterprises lawsuit against the Bank of
- 24 -
Boulder. Although the lawsuit was filed in July 1991, the facts
that formed the basis of that suit existed in 1990.9
The success of the lawsuit may have depended on further
investigation, but that does not negate Mr. Premji's prospects of
recovery in 1990. The test is whether the taxpayer had a
reasonable prospect of recovery at the end of the taxable year in
which the loss is claimed, not whether the taxpayer had collected
enough information to successfully prosecute legal action.
Qureshi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-153, affd. without
published opinion 843 F.2d 1388 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Geisler
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-404, affd. without published
opinion 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1992).
Mr. Premji discussed the Amazing Enterprises suit and
several other possibilities for investor recovery with an
attorney in late February 1991. He chose to pursue those avenues
of recovery and signed the attorney's retainer agreement in March
1991. That he was willing to diligently pursue the lawsuit
indicates that his prospects of recovery were reasonable rather
than remote or nebulous. Mr. Premji embarked on his course to
recoup his investment before he filed his 1990 Federal income tax
return on April 15, 1991. Hence, before he claimed his theft
9
A copy of the Amazing Enterprises suit complaint was made
part of the record. The suit was based on the Bank of Boulder's
alleged improper conduct in dealing with M&L's investors and in
handling checks presented for payment during the operation of the
ponzi scheme.
- 25 -
loss, he was pursuing at least one avenue of recovering that
loss.
The Amazing Enterprises suit, commenced on or about July 1,
1991, was settled in January 1993. In late 1994, Mr. Premji
received $29,205 from the settlement. That is approximately 50
percent of his claimed theft loss.
In addition, Mr. Premji filed a proof of claim in the
bankruptcy proceeding on May 16, 1991. The sole bankruptcy
estate assets available to satisfy creditors' claims are moneys
obtained as a result of Ms. Jobin's adversary proceedings to
avoid preferences and fraudulent conveyances. Ms. Jobin
testified that she concluded in February 1991 that such
proceedings would be her only avenue to satisfy creditors'
claims. Hence, in early 1991 Ms. Jobin clearly had formulated a
plan to attempt to bring assets into the bankruptcy estate.
Even though Ms. Jobin did not begin to file the adversary
proceedings until September 1992,10 the facts that formed the
basis of those proceedings existed at the close of 1990, i.e.,
M&L had made the payments in 1990 that Ms. Jobin sought to avoid.
As to Mr. Norby's prospects of recovery, we have considered
his subjective beliefs. His actions are consistent with those
beliefs. But, despite the prospect of losing his $60,000
10
Ms. Jobin did not obtain access to M&L's records until
July 1992. The records had been removed from M&L's place of
business and were obtained pursuant to a search warrant.
- 26 -
investment, Mr. Norby did not consult an attorney in 1990 or
1991. He knew that collateral suits against third parties were
in progress but chose not to participate in them. He did not
speak with Ms. Jobin, the bankruptcy trustee, in 1990. He filed
a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding on November 5,
1991, seeking recovery of his losses.
While the information Mr. Norby obtained in 1990 indicated
M&L's fraud and raised questions about its true financial
condition, the record does not support his conclusion that,
objectively, his prospects of recovering at least part of his
investment were remote or nebulous.
Mr. Norby did not offer any explanation as to why any
attempt or suit for recovery would have been futile except to
relate that his analysis and subjective feelings led him to
believe that his principal investment in M&L had been lost in
1990. That is not sufficient to meet his burden of proof that
there was no prospect of recovery. See Boehm v. Commissioner,
326 U.S. at 294.
Accordingly, because we conclude that Mr. Premji and Mr.
Norby had reasonable prospects for recovery of some of their
claimed M&L losses in 1990, we hold that they are not entitled to
theft loss deductions in that year.11
11
Petitioners may be entitled to claim theft loss
deductions in the year their claims are allowable and paid in the
bankruptcy proceeding if their recoveries are less than the
principal amounts they invested in M&L.
- 27 -
2. Whether Mr. Premji Constructively Received Interest Income In
1990
Between August and October 1990, Mr. Premji received a total
of seven checks from M&L representing promised interest payments.
He cashed the first four checks in the total amount of $8,000,
and conceded that the $8,000 was received as interest in 1990.
After he learned that M&L had filed its bankruptcy petition,
Mr. Premji attempted to cash the final interest check, dated
October 9, 1990, in the amount of $7,797 at an unspecified bank.
The bank refused to honor the check. Consequently, respondent
has conceded that the $7,797 was not interest income in 1990.
Mr. Premji contends that the two remaining interest checks
in the amounts of $6,444, dated September 23, 1990, and $7,088,
dated October 1, 1990, are not interest income in 1990 because he
could not have cashed them. He made no attempt to do so.
Instead, he returned both checks to M&L to increase his
investment. M&L did increase his investment and, accordingly,
increased the amount of his interest checks. Mr. Premji's proof
of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding is for $77,972, which
represents his cumulative investment with M&L.
Respondent argues that the amounts of both checks constitute
interest income in 1990 because Mr. Premji, as a cash basis
taxpayer, constructively received the income in that year.
Respondent first raised this issue in her Amendment to the Answer
- 28 -
seeking an increased deficiency. Therefore, respondent has the
burden of proof on the issue. Rule 142(a).
The amounts of both checks would be gross income derived
from interest according to the terms of Mr. Premji's arrangement
with M&L. See sec. 61(a)(4); Deputy v. DuPont, 308 U.S. 488, 498
(1940); sec. 1.61-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
An item of gross income shall be included in the taxable
year when received by the taxpayer unless under the taxpayer's
method of accounting the amount is properly reported in a
different period. Sec. 451(a). For a cash receipts and
disbursement method taxpayer, an item is includable in gross
income when it is actually or constructively received. Sec.
1.451-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
Income is constructively received in the taxable year during
which it is credited to the taxpayer's account, set apart for him
or otherwise made available so that the he may draw upon it at
any time. Sec. 1.451-2(a), Income Tax Regs. However, income is
not constructively received if the taxpayer's control of its
receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions.
Id.; see also Hornung v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 428, 434 (1967).
A check that is not subject to substantial restrictions and
that the taxpayer could have cashed is income when the check is
received. Kahler v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 31, 34 (1952) (citing
Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 524, 529 (1949)). It
follows that where the payor lacked funds to make the payment,
- 29 -
there can be no constructive receipt. Noel v. Commissioner, 50
T.C. 702, 706-707 (1968) (citing Jacobs v. Commissioner, 22
B.T.A. 1166, 1169 (1931) and Gullett v. Commissioner, 31 B.T.A.
1067, 1069 (1935)); see also Basila v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 111,
115-116 (1961).
Whether the funds were actually available for the taxpayer
to draw on, i.e., whether a check could be cashed, is a question
of fact. Johnson v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 499, 503 (1955). We
consider all relevant factors. Id.; see also Williams v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-560; Rosenberg v. United States,
295 F. Supp. 820, 823-824 (E.D. Mo. 1969), affd. per curiam 422
F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1970).
We hold that Mr. Premji did not constructively receive the
$7,088 represented by the October 1, 1990, check because there
were substantial restrictions that would have prevented him from
cashing it. That check was dated the same day that M&L filed its
bankruptcy petition. Hence, M&L's assets became property of the
bankruptcy estate on that day and the automatic stay provided in
11 U.S.C. section 362(a) (1994) would have prevented the bank
from paying that check.
Although 11 U.S.C. section 362(b)(11) (1994) creates an
exception to the automatic stay for presentment of negotiable
instruments, case law interpreting that provision indicates that
the exception does not authorize a transfer of bankruptcy estate
property. Wittman v. State Farm Life Insurance Co. (In re
- 30 -
Mills), 176 Bankr. 924, 928 (D. Kan. 1994); see also Roete v.
Smith, 936 F.2d 963, 965-966 (7th Cir. 1991). Instead, the
exception prevents presentment of the instrument from violating
the automatic stay. Id.
We also hold that respondent has failed to carry her burden
of proof that Mr. Premji constructively received the $6,444
represented by the September 23, 1990, check.
No evidence was introduced to establish M&L's bank account
balance or the amounts of outstanding obligations as of September
23, 1990, or for any relevant period. Ms. Jobin testified that
M&L's ponzi scheme collected approximately $10 million over the
12 months prior to October 1, 1990, the date the bankruptcy
petition was filed. However, there is no evidence as to what
part, if any, of this amount was available on or about September
23, 1990, to cover the $6,444 check.
Respondent relies primarily on the fact that Mr. Premji had
cashed four of M&L's interest checks in August 1990, at the Bank
of Boulder. All four checks are part of the record. That M&L
had sufficient funds in its account in August 1990, does not
support a finding that funds were available on or about September
23, 1990.
Respondent contends that Mr. Premji exercised dominion and
control over the interest income because he reinvested it rather
than obtaining cash and that he included it in his $77,972 proof
of claim filed in the bankruptcy proceeding. However, these acts
- 31 -
do not support the conclusion that Mr. Premji could have cashed
the interest checks. Consequently, because Mr. Premji did not
constructively receive either the $6,444 or $7,088 represented by
the checks, we conclude that neither amount is includable in his
gross income for 1990.
3. Whether The $8,000 Interest Actually Received by Mr. Premji
Should Be Included in His Gross Income for 1990
Mr. Premji received $8,000 as interest in 1990 when he
cashed four M&L interest checks in August 1990. The $8,000 was
Mr. Premji's promised 10 percent return every 8 days on his
initial $20,000 investment.
Although Mr. Premji has conceded that he received the $8,000
in 1990, he contends that it is not includable in his gross
income for that year because the open transaction doctrine
applies, thus allowing him to recover the full amount of his
principal before including any amount of interest in income. He
argues that his placement of funds with M&L constituted a risky
and speculative investment.12 He relies on Burnet v. Logan, 283
U.S. 404 (1931); Underhill v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 489 (1966);
and Liftin v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 909, affd. 317 F.2d 234 (4th
Cir. 1963). Respondent counters that Mr. Premji's circumstances
are distinguishable from those cases, and, therefore, the open
12
Mr. Premji has not argued that the amount of interest
he was to receive was uncertain.
- 32 -
transaction doctrine is inapplicable. Mr. Premji bears the
burden of proof on this issue. Rule 142(a).
The open transaction doctrine permits a taxpayer who
receives installment payments on the sale or other disposition of
property to recover his basis prior to recognizing gain where the
amount realized is not susceptible to valuation. See Burnet v.
Logan, supra at 413. It has been applied to purchasers of
installment obligations at a discount to enable the taxpayer to
recover the cost and a major portion of the discount before
recognizing gain where there was no reasonable certainty that all
payments on the obligation would be made. See Liftin v.
Commissioner, supra at 911; cf. Underhill v. Commissioner, supra
at 492-496. Thus, the essence of the open transaction doctrine
is uncertainty that the taxpayer will recover the full amount of
his basis or cost.
Mr. Premji invested $58,000 with M&L on four separate
occasions by cashier's check as follows:
July 31, 1990 $20,000
August 30, 1990 4,000
September 5, 1990 14,000
September 13, 1990 20,000
$58,000
Of the $58,000 total amount, we are here concerned with only
the $20,000 invested on July 31, 1990, because that is the
principal that gave rise to the $8,000 in interest Mr. Premji
actually received.
- 33 -
It is our view that this situation does not fall within the
parameters of the open transaction doctrine, which is limited to
rare and extraordinary circumstances. Estate of Wiggins v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 701, 708 (1979). Here we find that Mr.
Premji has failed to carry his burden of proof that it was
uncertain he would recover his principal.
Mr. Premji overlooks the fact that M&L returned the full
amount of his principal during August 1990. He conceded that he
received a $20,000 check representing the full amount of his
principal each time he received a $2,000 interest check.
Although he cashed the $2,000 checks, he voluntarily chose not to
liquidate his investment by cashing any one of the $20,000
checks. Instead, Mr. Premji chose to reinvest that amount by
returning each $20,000 check to M&L.
The record contains no bank account statements for M&L or
other evidence that any one of these $20,000 checks would not
have been honored on presentment during the month of August.
Contrary to Mr. Premji's assertion that his principal might not
be repaid, it was made available to him. He voluntarily chose to
reinvest that principal rather than liquidate the investment.
Consequently, we hold that Mr. Premji has not shown that it
was uncertain he would recover his $20,000 principal and that the
open transaction doctrine applies in these circumstances. Thus,
the $8,000 interest he received in 1990 constitutes gross income
in that year.
- 34 -
To the extent arguments made by the parties have not been
addressed, we deem them to be without merit.
To reflect concessions made by the parties and our
conclusions with respect to the disputed issues,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.