1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*76
Respondent mailed notices of FSAA's in which he determined adjustments to enumerated subchapter S items and determined that two of the three shareholders had insufficient bases to support their distributive share of subchapter S corporation losses claimed on their individual tax returns.
97 T.C. 278">*278 OPINION
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed August 22, 1990. On December 15, 1989, respondent mailed notices of final S corporation administrative adjustment (FSAA) to Paul Celler, the tax matters person (TMP) of University Heights At Hamilton Corp. (University Heights) for the taxable years ending October 31, 1984, October 31, 1985, and October 31, 1986. The Explanation of Items 1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*77 forms attached to each FSAA stated that University Heights was a "no change." The deductions and losses of University Heights and their allocation among shareholders as reported on the corporate returns were not adjusted in the FSAA's. Respondent determined adjustments which affected shareholders' 97 T.C. 278">*279 bases by determining or making adjustments to the following items: Capital Stock Loans Payable (Corp.) Loans Receivable (Corp.) 1984 Corporate Loss Allowable Contributions Capital Loss - ST Capital Losses Investment Interest Section 179 Deduction Allowable 1984 net operating loss
University Heights is a subchapter S corporation subject to the subchapter S corporation audit and litigation procedures contained in
The TMP did not file a petition with this Court, nor with a United States District Court or the Claims Court, within the applicable period pursuant to
Respondent agrees that shareholder basis is not a subchapter S item over which this Court has jurisdiction in this corporate level proceeding. He concedes that he improperly raised the issue of shareholders' bases and the issue of the allowable amount of a 1984 net operating loss carryforward in his FSAA's, and he agrees that these issues should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, he contends that this Court does have jurisdiction over the other items enumerated in the FSAA's, whether they were adjusted, reallocated, or accepted as reported on the corporate returns, 1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*80 as those other items are subchapter S items. Both parties cite
In
A subchapter S item is defined as "any item of an S corporation to the extent regulations prescribed by the Secretary provide that, for purposes of this subtitle, such item is more appropriately determined at the corporate level than at the shareholder level." (1) The S corporation aggregate and each shareholder's share of, and any factor necessary to determine, each of the following: (i) Items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of the corporation; * * * (v) Corporate liabilities (including determinations of the amount of the liability, whether the corporate liability is to a shareholder of the corporation, and changes from the preceding year); * * * * * * (5) Items relating to the following transactions, to the extent that a determination of such items can be made from determinations that the corporation is required to make with respect to an amount, the character of an amount, or the percentage of stock ownership of a shareholder in the corporation, for purposes of the corporation's books and records or for purposes of furnishing information to a shareholder: (i) Contributions to the1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*82 corporation; and (ii) Distributions from the corporation.
The explanation of adjustments made in respondent's FSAA's specifically stated that respondent's agent "only adjusted taxpayer's basis." These adjustments to basis, however, resulted directly from respondent's review of each shareholder's allocable share of corporate deductions and losses, of loans between the shareholders and the corporation, and of the amounts of capital stock purchased and cash contributions made by the shareholders. These items are specifically defined as subchapter S items as noted above. The treatment by University Heights of these items is more appropriately determined at the corporate level than at the shareholder level. See
97 T.C. 278">*282 Further, the fact that respondent determined no adjustments to University Heights' income1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*83 or losses does not prevent us from having jurisdiction in this case. The prerequisites to this Court's jurisdiction are the issuance of an FSAA and the timely filing of a petition.
The parties agree that we do not have jurisdiction1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*84 over shareholders' bases in University Heights. Respondent also has withdrawn the net operating loss carryforward issue. Accordingly, petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner's taxable years 1984, 1985, and 1986 will be denied.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the years at issue.↩