Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GERBER, JUDGE: Respondent determined an $ 81,679 income tax deficiency for petitioner's tax year ended May 31, 1993, a $ 6,082
The issues for our consideration are: (1) Whether litigation costs paid by petitioner on behalf of clients and then reimbursed to petitioner are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses or whether such payments are in the nature of nondeductible advances or loans; (2) whether respondent's adjustment to petitioner's reporting of litigation costs triggers a
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner Pelton & Gunther, P.C. (P&G), is a law firm operating as a professional corporation and had its principal place of business in San Mateo, California, at the time the petition was filed. P&G's Federal income tax returns are filed for fiscal years ending May 31. For the taxable years ended May 31, 1992 and 1993, P&G used the cash method of accounting for Federal income tax reporting.
P&G's legal specialty is the defense of personal injury automobile accident lawsuits. More than 90 percent of P&G's services were performed pursuant to the request of the California State Automobile Association (CSAA). At CSAA's request, P&G provided legal services for CSAA policyholders in connection with controversies arising from automobile accidents. 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*394 Under this arrangement, CSAA generally paid P&G $ 400 at the time P&G was asked to represent one of CSAA's policyholders. P&G would pay various litigation costs including filing fees; deposition expenses; the costs of medical records; fees for witnesses, court reporters, and interpreters; and similar expenses as they would occur. The litigation costs P&G paid on each case, more often than not, exceeded $ 400.
P&G would bill CSAA for its legal services and the litigation costs that it incurred on behalf of CSAA's policyholders after the controversies were resolved and the cases were closed. Cases were often open for more than 1 year. Some bills from P&G to CSAA were for litigation costs only, some were for legal fees (services) only, and some were for both costs and fees. P&G's fees were paid by CSAA at a stated hourly rate. P&G claimed as a deduction litigation costs it paid on behalf of CSAA's policyholders, either from the $ 400 retainer or as advances, in the year that it paid the litigation costs. P&G reported the $ 400 retainers and the reimbursements of litigation costs as income in the year they were received by P&G.
P&G's deductions for litigation costs were as follows:
Fiscal 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*395 year ending Litigation costs
__________________ ________________
May 31, 1990 $ 262,771.60
May 31, 1991 280,332.39
May 31, 1992 382,365.84
May 31, 1993 358,092.07
May 31, 1994 254,562.73
P&G reported retainers and reimbursed litigation costs as
income as follows:
Retainers and reimbursed
________________________
Fiscal year ending litigation costs
__________________ ________________
May 31, 1991 $ 242,867.08
May 31, 1992 361,880.37
May 31, 1993 377,767.17
May 31, 1994 276,686.05
Respondent, in the notice of deficiency, disallowed a portion of the total deduction petitioner claimed for litigation costs, reduced income by the amount of reimbursed previously claimed deductions that P&G had included in its 1993 fiscal year, and made a
OPINION
We agree with respondent. On the basis of longstanding case precedents, P&G's payments or advances of the client's litigation costs should be treated like loans. See
In this case, we note that the repayment of the advances was in no way contingent upon the outcome of the underlying litigation. P&G expected to be and was repaid for all costs advanced to CSAA's policyholders. "It has been firmly established that where a taxpayer makes expenditures under an agreement that he will be reimbursed therefor, such expenditures are in the nature of loans or advancements and are not deductible as business expenses."
Petitioner relies on
Petitioner advanced additional arguments with respect to the reimbursed expenses and litigation costs. Petitioner argued that respondent is estopped from denying the deductibility of the litigation 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*399 costs because petitioner relied on the contents of an Internal Revenue Service publication entitled "Business Expenses for 1988" (publication). The publication contains the following statement, at 3:
If you are a cash method taxpayer who pays an expense
and then recovers any part of the amount paid in the
same tax year, reduce your expense deduction by the
amount of the recovery. If you have recovery in a
later year, include the recovered amount in income.
* * *
Petitioner's reliance on that publication is unwarranted because the excerpt relied upon assumes that the expenditure is deductible in the first instance. The material relied on by petitioner does not address the critical preliminary question of whether the costs advanced were loans or expenses. Reliance on the Commissioner's publication, in this instance, is misplaced because it does not contain guidance on the question of which costs, payments, or disbursements constitute a deductible expense. 41999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*400
Respondent, in the notice of deficiency, disallowed petitioner's claimed deduction of litigation costs for 1993. Respondent also reversed petitioner's 1993 income inclusion attributable to reimbursement of litigation costs deducted in prior years (including 1992). Finally, respondent determined that
Here, petitioner claimed deductions for its clients' litigation costs, which 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*402 petitioner expected would be reimbursed. The focus of respondent's adjustment addressed whether petitioner was entitled to deductions for those costs. Respondent did not change the method of accounting by which petitioner reported a particular item but instead determined that the item was not deductible, ab initio. The result of petitioner's deduction in one year and inclusion in another may appear like a timing question because it could result in increased deductions reducing petitioner's income in one year and petitioner's reporting as income any reimbursed deductions in a subsequent year. The essence of respondent's determination, however, was that petitioner's payments of litigation costs were loans to its clients, so the deductions were not allowable and the reimbursements were not includable in income.
Accordingly,
Finally, we note that respondent did not include in the reversal of the reimbursements the aggregate of the $ 400 amounts CSAA advanced to petitioner upon the beginning of each case. Under petitioner's approach the $ 400 amounts were included as part of the reimbursement income reported. On brief, respondent contended that petitioner had unrestricted use of the $ 400 amounts 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*404 because they were first deposited in petitioner's general bank account and then transferred to a segregated account for payment of litigation costs. Accordingly, respondent did not reverse the $ 400 amounts out of income or include them in the
In addition to contesting the substance of respondent's determination, petitioner also contends that the amounts disallowed by respondent are unreasonable and inaccurate. The problem is generated by the fact that petitioner did not specifically account for litigation costs in reporting its income. Petitioner used a form of netting to arrive at the amount of the claimed deduction. Petitioner's approach is to treat receipts and expenses as part of a "revolving pool into which unsegregated receipts" were deposited and then used to pay expenses. Respondent determined that $ 129,815 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*405 of petitioner's $ 358,092 in claimed deductions was not allowable by concluding, in part, that reimbursements during the first 6 months of the next fiscal year (ended May 1994) represented litigation costs advanced by petitioner during the 1993 fiscal year. Petitioner argues that respondent ignored the revolving pool concept and, instead, calculated the disallowed portion of the deduction using an analysis of individual cases pending in petitioner's office.
Respondent explained that his agent used a statistical sampling technique to calculate the amount of the deduction to disallow for the 1993 tax year. The agent analyzed a sampling of cases to find the average time delay between expenditure and reimbursement by calculating the average length of time a sample case remained open. This was corroborated by reviewing the frequency of bank deposits and comparing specific deposits to a sampling of cases. By this type of methodology, respondent's agent estimated a 6-month period between expenditure and reimbursement.
Although respondent's determination involved estimates, it is reasonably accurate under the circumstances because of petitioner's failure to maintain records that would identify 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*406 the amount of unreimbursed litigation costs for the fiscal year. In that regard, petitioner bears the burden of showing that respondent's determination is in error. Petitioner has not provided the Court with a method that is more reliable than respondent's. Petitioner's failure to keep or present respondent or the Court with adequate records showing the amounts involved is of its own doing, and, accordingly, petitioner must bear those consequences. See
FINDINGS OF FACT
P&G incurred a $ 3,382 net operating loss (NOL) for its 1990 fiscal year. For the 1991 fiscal year, P&G incurred a $ 277,478 NOL, and it did not carry either the 1990 or 1991 NOL back to prior fiscal years. In addition, no election was made waiving the NOL carryback with respect to prior years. On its Federal income tax returns for the years ended May 31, 1992 and 1993, P&G reported taxable income of $ 163,295 and $ 239,422, respectively, without considering 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*407 the NOL deductions. P&G carried the 1990 and 1991 NOL's forward, applying them first to absorb fiscal year 1992 taxable income, and the NOL balance (deduction) was then carried forward and applied to the 1993 fiscal year.
P&G sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service Center in Fresno, California, on August 14, 1990, containing the following statement/question:
QUESTION TO IRS. We have a loss for the year
6/1/89 -- 5/31/90. Are we required to carry that loss
back to previous years, requiring amendment of previous
years' returns, or may we just carry the loss forward
to future years and thus avoid the necessity of
amending prior returns? Thank you for your assistance.
P&G did not receive a response.
Ultimately, respondent determined that the loss available for use against the 1993 income should be reduced by the amount of the loss which would have been absorbed if carried back to pre-1990 fiscal years.
OPINION
Taxpayers are permitted to carry net operating losses from one taxable year to another. See
The Secretary promulgated the following requirements for making the election:
[The election] shall be made by a statement attached to
the return (or amended return) for the taxable year.
The statement required * * * shall indicate the section
under which the election is being made and shall set
forth information to identify the election, the period
for which it applies, and the taxpayer's basis or
entitlement for making the election.
Sec. 301.9100-12T(d), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
We 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*409 have previously analyzed these statutory and regulatory requirements under
P&G's August 14 letter falls far short of this minimum or threshold requirement. First, the letter to the service center was not attached to P&G's return as required by the regulation. Second, the letter does not manifest P&G's agreement or intention to make the election; it merely inquires whether such an election can be made. In that regard, most of the NOL's in question were incurred during 1991, the year after P&G sent the letter of inquiry to the service center. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that P&G has complied with the regulatory requirements, and we sustain respondent's determination that P&G's NOL should be reduced by the amounts that would have been absorbed by the carryback 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 392">*410 of the losses to pre-loss years. 6
Respondent also determined that petitioner was negligent and liable for a penalty under
Negligence has been defined as a "lack of due care or a failure to do what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances."
In deciding whether petitioner was negligent, we take into account the legal background and years of legal experience possessed by petitioner's owner(s). See
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year under consideration, and Rule references are to this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioner conceded at trial that if the Court determined that there was a deficiency, then it would be liable for the
3. The parties' stipulated facts and exhibits are incorporated by this reference.↩
4. Assuming arguendo that the publication was applicable to the question of whether or not advanced costs are deductible, the statement relied on by petitioner is the statement of a legal principle (i.e., Tax Benefit Rule). Because a necessary element for estoppel is that there be reliance on a factual statement, the circumstances here would not satisfy that necessary prerequisite. See
5. There is some question as to whether tax benefit principles apply where a deduction was improperly or erroneously taken (as it was in this case). We note, however, that an appeal of this case would normally be to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where tax benefit principles have been held to apply concerning improper or erroneous deductions. See
6. To the extent we have not addressed certain other arguments made by petitioner, we found them to be wholly without merit.↩
7. Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for a