1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*128 Decision will be entered for the petitioners.
Petitioners in computing their farm income, satisfied the accounting requirements of
67 T.C. 1071">*1071 OPINION
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income taxes for the calendar years 1970 and 1971 in the amounts of $ 7,434.60 and $ 7,438.35, respectively. The issue for decision is whether petitioners, due to their failure to file a statement of election with their returns, are deprived of the benefits of
All of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners Jaquelin E. Taylor and Helen M. Taylor, husband and wife, resided in Richmond, Va., at the time they filed their petition herein. Petitioners1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*130 timely filed joint Federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1970 and 1971 with the Internal Revenue Service. They also filed an amended return for 1970 with the District Director of Internal Revenue, Richmond, Va., on December 22, 1971.
Petitioner Jaquelin E. Taylor has for a number of years maintained an operating dairy and beef cattle farm in Orange County, Va. During 1970 and 1971 petitioners computed their farm income on the accrual method of accounting, including the use of inventories. They charged to the capital account all expenditures paid or incurred which were properly chargeable thereto (including any expenditures which petitioners were, under the Code or regulations, entitled to treat or elect to treat as noncapital expenditures). This practice is consistent 67 T.C. 1071">*1072 with the accounting requirements set forth in
During 1970 and 1971 petitioners sold livestock described in
Neither petitioners' 1970 or 1971 joint individual income tax returns contained a statement indicating that they had made an election under
At the time they filed their 1970 return, petitioners, their lawyer, and the accountant who reviewed the return were aware of
Temporary regulation section 13.0 was published in the Federal Register on1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*132 March 11, 1970, and was subsequently published in the Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin. The only other written materials relating to
(1) Farmer's Tax Guide, 1971 Edition (Pub. 225)
(2) Farmer's Tax Guide, 1972 Edition (Pub. 225)
(3) 1971 Schedule D to Form 1040
(4) 1971 Form 4797 (Supplemental Schedule of Gains and Losses)
(5) 1970 Instructions to Form 1040
(6) 1971 Instructions to Form 1040
(7) 1971 Instructions to Form 4797
67 T.C. 1071">*1073 None of the foregoing makes reference to the election provided for in
(1) The 1970 instructions for Form 1040 provide in pertinent part:
Gain from Disposition of
Gain from the disposition of certain farm property that is both
(2) The 1971 instructions to Form 4797 provide in pertinent part:
* * *
The excess deductions account is a component in
(3) The Farmer's Tax Guide 1971 Edition in pertinent part provides:
RECAPTURE OF FARM LOSSES OFFSET AGAINST NONFARM INCOME. If you have a farm net loss of more than $ 25,000, your nonfarm adjusted gross income is more than $ 50,000, and you report your income on the cash method, part of the gain on the sale or other disposition of certain property used in farming will be treated as ordinary income.
You must establish and maintain an "excess deductions account" if you meet all 3 of the above conditions. This account serves as a measure of the amount of gain arising on the disposition of property used in farming that you must treat as ordinary income. Gain on the disposition of certain property is treated as ordinary income to the extent of the balance of the "excess deductions account."
(4) The Farmer's Tax Guide 1972 Edition in pertinent part provides:
RECAPTURE OF FARM LOSSES OFFSET AGAINST NONFARM INCOME (
You must establish and maintain an "excess deductions account" if you meet all 3 of the above conditions. This account serves as a measure of the amount of gain arising on the disposition of property used in farming that you must treat as ordinary income. Gain on the disposition of certain property is treated as ordinary income to the extent of the balance of the "excess deductions account."
Petitioners provided all available information to respondent's agents in attempting to demonstrate that they had made an election under
(4) Exception for taxpayers 1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*137 using certain accounting methods. --
(A) General rule. -- Except to the extent that the taxpayer has succeeded to an excess deductions account as provided in paragraph (5), additions to the excess deductions account shall not be required by a taxpayer who elects to compute taxable income from farming (i) by using inventories, and (ii) by charging to capital account all expenditures paid or incurred which are properly chargeable to capital account (including such expenditures which the taxpayer may, under this chapter or regulations prescribed thereunder, otherwise treat or elect to treat as expenditures which are not chargeable to capital account).
(B) Time, manner, and effect of election. -- An election under subparagraph (A) for any taxable year shall be filed within the time prescribed by law (including extensions thereof) for filing the return for such taxable year, and shall be made and filed in such manner as the Secretary or his delegate shall prescribe by regulations. Such election shall be binding on the taxpayer for such taxable year and for all subsequent taxable years and may not be revoked except with the consent of the Secretary or his delegate.
The parties1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*138 agree that unless the exception is applicable1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*139
1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*140 Petitioners' arguments comprise a multifaceted attack upon respondent's determination including the contention that they did not have adequate notice of the provision at issue, that the result obtained by respondent contravenes the statutory scheme, and that petitioners substantially complied with the governing statute and did in fact make an effective election thereunder.
First, we agree with respondent that the regulations are valid. In addition to the authority granted under section 7805 to prescribe all needful regulations, respondent is specifically mandated by
Second, we agree with respondent that as a general proposition, a taxpayer does not have an absolute right to file an amended return. See
The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has been the subject of a myriad of cases. The critical question to be answered is whether the requirements relate "to the substance or essence of the statute."
Congress recognized that the abuses curtailed by
To our mind, the essence of
In this connection respondent asserts that he was unable to ascertain from the four corners of petitioners' returns whether or not they had satisfied the aforenoted accounting requirements. In particular he points to a deduction for general expenses appearing1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*145 on the returns. The fact of the matter is that respondent would have been in no better position to make such determination had petitioners filed the election exactly as respondent desired. Under those regulations petitioners would merely have to state they were making an election under
Respondent has cited for our consideration and we have found numerous cases in which courts have sustained his rejection of an untimely election. We find these cases to be distinguishable from the instant case. In each one the following set of circumstances prevailed:
(1) The original action or failure to act was inconsistent with the position the taxpayer ultimately chose to elect.
67 T.C. 1071">*1080 (2) The allowance of an untimely election would permit the taxpayer the use of hindsight to play both ends against the middle.
(3) Respondent would be prejudiced were an untimely election permitted.
(4) The applicable statute or regulation provided with detailed specificity the manner in which an election was to be made.
(5) The required action related to the substance of the statutory scheme.
(6) The untimely election would affect the taxpayer's tax liability for another year.
We find none of the foregoing factors to be present in the instant case. As noted previously respondent is not in any manner prejudiced by petitioners' actions which taken as a whole have been entirely consistent. Petitioners have always thought themselves to be excepted from
Moreover, petitioners have had no opportunity to avail themselves of hindsight to obtain an unwarranted advantage. Having chosen to utilize the statutory method of accounting, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain from making an election at the outset. Hindsight simply would be of no benefit to petitioners in this instance.
Finally petitioners' election1977 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 128">*148 has no effect on the computation of their tax liability for other years. Admittedly the election is binding for subsequent years. However the net result of such election is merely to tax the gain from dispositions at capital gains rather than ordinary income rates. See
67 T.C. 1071">*1081 All in all we do not believe that this was a useful case, from a tax administration point of view, for the respondent to have initiated.
Decision will be entered for the petitioners.
Footnotes
1.
SEC. 1251 . GAIN FROM DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY USED IN FARMING WHERE FARM LOSSES OFFSET NONFARM INCOME.(b) Excess Deductions Account. --
(1) Requirement. -- Each taxpayer subject to this section shall, for purposes of this section, establish and maintain an excess deductions account.
* * *
(c) Ordinary Income. --
(1) General rule. -- Except as otherwise provided in this section, if farm recapture property (as defined in subsection (e)(1)) is disposed of during a taxable year beginning after December 31, 1969, the amount by which * * *
* * *
(2) Limitation. --
(A) Amount in excess deductions account. -- The aggregate of the amounts treated under paragraph (1) as gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in
section 1231 for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount in the excess deductions account at the close of the taxable year after applying subsection (b)(3)(A).* * *
(e) Definitions. -- For purposes of this section --
(1) Farm recapture property. -- The term "farm recapture property" means --
(A) any property (other than section 1250 property) described in paragraph (1) (relating to business property held for more than 6 months), (3) (relating to livestock), or (4) (relating to an unharvested crop) of
section 1231(b) which is or has been used in the trade or business of farming by the taxpayer or by a transferor in a transaction described in subsection (b)(5), and(B) any property the basis of which in the hands of the taxpayer is determined with reference to the adjusted basis of property which was farm recapture property in the hands of the taxpayer within the meaning of subparagraph (A).↩
2. Temporary regulation sec. 13.0(b):
(b) Manner of making election or serving notice -- (1) In general. (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, a taxpayer may make an election under any section referred to in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section for the first taxable year for which the election is required to be made or for the taxable year selected by the taxpayer when the choice of a taxable year is optional. The election must be made not later than (a) the time, including extensions thereof, prescribed by law for filing the income tax return for such taxable year or (b) 90 days after the date [Mar. 10, 1970] on which these regulations are filed with the Federal Register, whichever is later.
(ii) The election shall be made by a statement attached to the return (or an amended return) for the taxable year, indicating the section under which the election is being made and setting forth information to identify the election, the period for which it applies, and the facility, property, or amounts to which it applies.
(c) Effect of election -- (1) Revocations -- (i) Consent to revoke required. Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an election made in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be binding unless consent to revoke the election is obtained from the Commissioner. An application for consent to revoke the election will not be accepted before the promulgation of the permanent regulations relating to the section of the Code or Act under which the election is made. Such regulations will provide a reasonable period of time within which taxpayers will be permitted to apply for consent to revoke the election.
(ii) Revocation without consent↩. An election made in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be revoked without the consent of the Commissioner not later than 90 days after the permanent regulations relating to the section of the Code or Act under which the election is made are filed with the Federal Register, provided such regulations grant taxpayers blanket permission to revoke that election within such time without the consent of the Commissioner. Such blanket permission to revoke an election will be provided by the permanent regulations in the event of a determination by the Secretary or his delegate that such regulations contain provisions that may not reasonably have been anticipated by taxpayers at the time of making such election.
3. It cannot be gainsaid that ignorance of the provisions involved is not a valid basis upon which to excuse a failure to make an effective timely election.
Riley Co. v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55">311 U.S. 55 (1940). Thus, while not material to our decision we cannot help but note that 1970 was the first effective year forsec. 1251 and that various Government instructions and forms might lead one to believe thatsec. 1251↩ was inapplicable to an accrual basis taxpayer.