1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*102
Petitioner, a savings and loan association, used the reserve method of accounting for bad debts in 1975 and, under the reserve method, used the experience method of computing its bad debt deduction for 1975. Petitioner maintained as a permanent part of its books and records (1) certain tax reserve accounts which are required for the use of the reserve method, (2) a reconciliation of these tax reserve accounts with its other reserve accounts, and (3) its Federal income tax return for 1975 which explained the entries made to the tax reserve accounts.
80 T.C. 571">*572 The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable years and in the amounts as follows:
Year | Deficiency |
1969 | $ 263.15 |
1970 | 398.24 |
1971 | 996.19 |
1972 | 271,034.31 |
1973 | 316,649.09 |
1974 | 155,511.66 |
1975 | 423,503.48 |
1976 | 8,941.68 |
After concessions by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether the petitioner complied with the requirements of
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and stipulated exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
80 T.C. 571">*573 The petitioner is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina and a federally chartered mutual savings and loan association without capital stock represented by shares. Its principal place of business was Durham, N.C., at the time its petition in this case was filed.
The petitioner filed its Federal corporate income tax return for the taxable year ending December 31, 1969, on the cash basis. Beginning with its taxable year ending December 31, 1970, the petitioner changed its method of accounting from the cash receipts and disbursements method to the accrual method. The petitioner filed its Federal corporate income tax returns for the taxable years 1970 through 1976 on the accrual basis.
The petitioner filed an amended Federal income tax return, compiled on the cash method of accounting, for the taxable year 1969.
The petitioner filed, on March 2, 1976, corporate applications1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*107 for tentative refunds for the taxable years 1969 through 1974 in the amounts of $ 263.15 for 1969, $ 236.84 for 1970, $ 592.69 for 1971, $ 271,034.31 for 1972, $ 316,649.09 for 1973, and $ 73,305.16 for 1974. The amounts for 1972, 1973, and 1974 were refunded to petitioner on or about May 4, 1976. The amounts for 1969, 1970, and 1971 were refunded to petitioner on or about June 17, 1976. These refunds were created by the carryback of a net operating loss from 1975 to 1972 in the amount of $ 1,553,619.02, which created unused investment credits for 1972 which were carried back by the petitioner to 1969, 1970, and 1971. Of the $ 1,553,619.02, $ 913,066.95 and $ 167,798.21 were carried over to 1973 and 1974, respectively.
The petitioner filed amended Federal corporate income tax returns, compiled on the accrual method of accounting, for the taxable years 1973 and 1974 on March 16, 1977, and March 15, 1978, respectively. In these amended returns, the petitioner claimed deductions for its minimum tax for the tax preference items in the amount of $ 35,065 for 1973 and $ 21,611 for 1974.
The petitioner, as a federally chartered mutual savings and loan association, is under the jurisdiction1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*108 of, and subject to, the regulations of the Federal Home Loan Bank.
The petitioner used the reserve method of accounting for bad debts for the taxable years 1969 through 1976. Under this reserve method, the petitioner computed its addition to the 80 T.C. 571">*574 reserve for bad debts using the percentage of taxable income method, under
The petitioner's books and records included certain reserves. These reserves were established on permanent subsidiary ledger cards. For the taxable year 1975, the petitioner also retained a copy of both its 1975 tax return and a copy of its 1975 Allocation and Reconciliation of Reserves 1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*109 Schedule as part of its permanent books and records. The following accounts and subaccounts are among the above-mentioned reserves established and maintained by petitioner:
Account | Account No. |
Federal insurance reserves | 2731 |
Reserves for losses on nonqualifying | |
real property loans | 2726 |
Reserves for losses on qualifying real | |
property loans | 2727 |
Supplemental reserves | 2728 |
General loss reserves | 2732 |
Special bad debt reserve | 2729 |
Balance of general loss reserves | 2730 |
Undivided profits | 2741 |
The three subaccounts of the Federal insurance reserve account comprise the three tax bad debt reserves required by
At the petitioner's executive committee meeting on November 21, 1974, petitioner's directors approved the establishment of a valuation allowance reserve for possible loss on first mortgage loans and real estate owned (valuation reserve) in the amount of $ 1,250,000 for possible losses on three loans: 80 T.C. 571">*575
Loan | Amount |
DR20023 Fletcher Woods | $ 600,000 |
DR20482 Gregory Real Estate | 400,000 |
DR20465 Heritage Hills | 250,000 |
1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*110 Petitioner effected the action of its directors by making appropriate entries in its financial and bank regulatory books and records (a "book" entry as opposed to a tax entry) 3 to create this valuation reserve by transfers from general loss reserve accounts.
At petitioner's board of directors meeting on October 9, 1975, the directors approved an increase in the valuation reserve in the amount of $ 806,298. This amount reflects the total amount by which certain outstanding loans exceeded the appraised value of the collateral securing the loans. The loans and amounts were:
Loan | Amount |
DR20189 Wakefield IV | $ 430,229 |
DR20139 Wakefield I | 144,612 |
DR20242 Chapel Towers II | 10,497 |
DR20212 Penrith Associates | 220,960 |
1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*111 Petitioner made appropriate book (as opposed to tax) entries to reflect this action.
At petitioner's board of directors meeting on November 13, 1975, the directors approved reducing the amount of the valuation reserve set aside for the Wakefield I loan (DR20139) from $ 144,612 to $ 51,612 and for the Wakefield IV loan (DR20189) from $ 430,229 to $ 132,730. At that time, the directors also approved an increase to the valuation reserve in the amount of $ 18,701 for the foreclosure of the Kavanau Real Estate Trust loan. The petitioner made appropriate book entries to reflect these actions.
At the petitioner's board of directors meeting on December 11, 1975, the directors approved an increase to the valuation reserve by $ 188,300 for the foreclosed Heritage Hills loan based on the appraised value of the collateral being less than 80 T.C. 571">*576 the outstanding balance of the loan. The petitioner made appropriate book entries to reflect this action.
The Valuation Reserve account was increased on December 17, 1975, by the amount of $ 485,719.10 because the outstanding loan balance exceeded the appraised value of the underlying collateral for the foreclosed loans DR21244 and DR21396 to properties1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*112 known as the Lee/Hall Properties. The petitioner made appropriate book entries to reflect this.
The Valuation Reserve account was decreased on December 30, 1975, in the amount of $ 390,282.75. This adjustment reduced the amounts in the valuation reserve for Fletcher Woods by the amount of $ 252,732.44, for Gregory Real Estate by the amount of $ 136,408.40, and for Wakefield IV by the amount of $ 1,141.93.
At petitioner's executive committee meeting on January 8, 1976, the directors approved the writedown of the following mortgage loans in the following amounts by crediting loan chargeoffs, account No. 999:
Loan | Amount |
DR20139 Wakefield I | $ 51,611.75 |
DR20242 Chapel Towers II | 10,497.20 |
DR20189 Wakefield IV | 131,588.07 |
DR20023 Fletcher Woods | 347,267.56 |
DR20482 Gregory Real Estate | 263,591.60 |
The directors also approved the writedown of the following loans in the following amounts to the real estate owned, account No. 1320:
Loan | Amount |
Heritage Hills | $ 438,300.00 |
Kavanau Real Estate Trust | 18,700.30 |
Penrith Associates | 220,960.77 |
Lee/Hall Properties | 485,719.10 |
These amounts were debited to valuation reserve, thereby reducing that account by the total writeoff1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*113 of $ 1,968,236.35. This amount constituted realized losses of the petitioner on its mortgage loans as reviewed and approved by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Atlanta, Ga. The chargeoffs in 1975 80 T.C. 571">*577 of $ 1,968,236.35 were in respect of "qualifying real property loans." 4
Petitioner computed its bad debt deduction for 1975 under the experience method on Schedule 4 of its Federal income tax return for 1975, which appeared as follows:
Computation of the experience method | ||
bad debt deduction (I.R.C. sec. 585(b)(2)(B)) | ||
1. Qualifying real property loans | 12/31/74 | 12/31/75 |
First mortgage loans and REO | $ 110,128,994 | $ 107,776,651 |
Less: | ||
Loans in process | 4,232,426 | 2,354,753 |
Loans secured by shares of stock | 693,700 | 364,200 |
4,926,126 | 2,718,953 | |
Net loans | 105,202,868 | 105,057,698 |
2. Percentage of 1975 qualifying real | ||
property loans to 1974 (but not in | ||
excess of 100%) | 99.862% | |
3. Permissible reserve for qualifying | ||
real property loans | ||
Reserve balance at 12/31/74 | 4,875,647 | |
Percentage from part 2 (above) | 99.862 | |
Permissible balance at 12/31/75 | 4,868,919 | |
4. Computation of the deduction | ||
Permissible balance at 12/31/75 (part 3) | 4,868,919 | |
Reserve balance at 12/31/74 | 4,875,647 | |
1975 Bad debt chargeoffs (Schedule ) 5 | 1,968,236 | |
Balance before the current addition | 2,907,411 | |
1975 experience method bad debt deduction | 1,961,508 |
1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*114 This schedule deals only with qualified real property loans and its computations are arithmetically correct.
The petitioner reflected on tax Schedule 10 of its Federal corporate income tax return for 1975 the following reserve balances as of January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1975. The 80 T.C. 571">*578 first three of these constitute the required tax bad debt reserves.
1/1/75 | 12/31/75 | |
I Nonqualifying reserves | $ 1,000.00 | $ 1,000.00 |
II Qualifying real property loans | 4,875,647.15 | 4,868,919.00 |
III Supplemental reserves | 1,465,774.35 | 872,749.48 |
IV Pre-1952 reserves | 724,265.26 | 74,265.26 |
V Tax paid or exempt | 1,677,932.71 | 1,987,489.33 |
8,744,619.47 | 7,804,423.07 |
The net adjustment to petitioner's Reserves for Losses on Qualifying Real Property Loans as a result of its calculations on Schedule 4 was1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*115 $ 6,728.15. This is the result of reducing the account by the $ 1,968,236 bad debt chargeoff and then increasing the account by the 1975 experience method bad debt deduction to restore the account to the permissible balance of $ 4,868,919. Petitioner's Reserve for Losses on Qualifying Real Property Loans account (No. 2727) as maintained by ledger card showed a balance of $ 4,875,647.15 after the posting of the 1974 adjustment. The 1975 adjustment, posted on March 2, 1976, was a reduction to the account in the amount of $ 6,728.15, creating a balance of $ 4,868,919.
The petitioner's Allocation and Reconciliation of Reserves Schedule for 1975 shows a beginning balance of $ 4,875,647.15 for Reserves for Qualifying Real Property Loans, an adjustment for the year reducing the account by $ 6,728.15, and an ending balance of $ 4,868,919.
The petitioner, on its Federal corporate income tax return for its taxable year ended December 31, 1975, claimed a bad debt deduction in the amount of $ 1,961,508, which was disallowed by the Commissioner in his notice of deficiency dated December 10, 1979.
The Commissioner, in his notice of deficiency, disallowed petitioner's 1975 bad debt deduction 1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*116 as follows:
(e) It is determined that for the tax year 1975 no deduction -- using the experience method -- it [sic] is allowable for bad debt expense, because the requirements of
The Commissioner also indicated, in his notice of deficiency, that the claims for refund would be disallowed if the minimum tax issues raised in the petitioner's claims for refund were not made a part of a petition to be considered by this Court in any determination of the petitioner's tax liability.
OPINION
Petitioner computed, recorded, and claimed a deduction for bad debts in 1975 in the amount of $ 1,961,508. The Commissioner determined that petitioner was not entitled to this deduction1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*117 because it did not comply with the requirements of
80 T.C. 571">*580 With regard to the establishment and maintenance of reserves for bad debts by a savings and loan association,
Each taxpayer described in subsection (a) which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts shall establish and maintain a reserve for losses on qualifying real property loans, a reserve for losses on nonqualifying loans, and a supplemental reserve for losses on loans. For purposes of this title, such reserves shall be treated as reserves for bad debts, but no deduction shall be allowed for any addition to the supplemental reserve for losses on loans.
Any debt becoming worthless or partially worthless in respect of a qualifying real property loan shall be charged to the reserve for losses on such loans, and any debt becoming worthless or partially worthless in respect of a nonqualifying loan shall be charged to the reserve for losses on nonqualifying loans; except that any such debt may, at the election of the taxpayer, be charged in whole or in part to the supplemental reserve for losses on loans.
(b)
(a)
(2)
(ii) Any credit or charge to a reserve established1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*121 pursuant to subparagraph (1) of this paragraph must be made to such reserve irrespective of whether the amount thereof is also credited or charged to any surplus, reserve, or other account which the taxpayer may be required or permitted to maintain pursuant to any Federal or State statute, regulation, or supervisory order.
The treatment of the reserves for bad debts is also set forth in
(c)
* * * *
(2)
The question before us is not whether petitioner incurred bad debt losses during 1975, it is agreed that it did, but rather whether petitioner complied with the statutes and regulations, set forth above, permitting petitioner a deduction on the basis and method the petitioner used.
Respondent's view of petitioner's lack of compliance is based on two things. First, respondent argues that petitioner did not keep its 1975 tax return and the 1975 reserve Allocation and Reconciliation of Reserves Schedule (the disputed documents) as part of petitioner's permanent books and records. Second, respondent maintains that
Respondent is wrong with respect to the records1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*123 that petitioner kept. It is undisputed that petitioner retained these 80 T.C. 571">*582 records. Respondent maintains, however, that they were not maintained as part of petitioner's books and records because they were kept in a locked box accessible only to certain corporate officers. Linda Carden, an officer of petitioner who was treasurer of petitioner from 1975 through 1978, testified that petitioner retained these documents as part of its books and records. She further testified that she went to the locked box "quite often" to get these documents for examinations or for auditors. This testimony is uncontroverted and we believe her. We have found that petitioner retained these documents as part of its books and records. We turn now to the recordkeeping requirements of
(1) A reserve for losses on qualifying real property loans,
(2) A reserve for losses on nonqualifying loans, and
(3) A supplemental reserve for losses on loans.
Taxpayers must establish and maintain these reserves as a permanent part1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*124 of their books and records.
When we consider the disputed documents as part of petitioner's books and records, it is clear that petitioner met the recordkeeping1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*125 requirements of
The above clearly demonstrates that petitioner maintained the required tax reserves, posted both the bad debt writeoff and the increase in the reserve to the appropriate account, albeit by a net entry, and reconciled its tax accounts to its other accounts.
Respondent maintains, however, that
1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*128 We recently reviewed the case law in this area in
From the above cases, we note that taxpayers which have been denied their deductions fall into two classes. In one class are those which simply delay too long. It is clear that the book entries must be made promptly after the close of the year, generally by the time returns are filed.
In
The credits to these accounts took the form of yearend approximations of the year's bad debt deductions, but no adjusting entries were made on the book accounts when the precise amount of available deductions became known at the time the returns were filed. Instead, reconciling entries were made on Schedule M of their Federal corporate income tax returns. Taxpayer Evergreen never charged its reserve accounts for bad debts. Taxpayer Centralia had no bad debts or recoveries in the years in issue. Under
On these facts we found that the Federal insurance reserve served as a reserve for losses on qualifying real property loans and that the taxpayers were entitled to deductions for the amounts credited to the reserve accounts to the extent that they did not exceed the maximum deduction otherwise available on the percentage of taxable income method. We also found that reconciling entries on Schedule M do not substitute for book adjustment entries. In affirming this opinion, the Ninth Circuit described this as a practical, 1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*132 commonsense approach.
80 T.C. 571">*586 With this background, we will consider respondent's specific arguments. Respondent maintains that petitioner did not comply with the recordkeeping requirement of
Respondent's first argument is that the petitioner charged off its bad debt losses with respect to qualifying real property loans in the amount1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*133 of $ 1,968,236.35 to its Valuation Allowance Reserve for Possible Losses on First Mortgage Loans and Real Estate Owned, account No. 2512, and through that account to its Supplemental Reserve, account No. 2729, in the amount of $ 650,000, its Pre-1952 Reserves, account No. 2730, in the amount of $ 600,000, and its Tax Paid or Exempt-Undivided Profits, account No. 2742, in the amount of $ 718,236.35. Respondent maintains that under the provisions of
We have previously found that petitioner did charge off its 1975 bad debt losses to account No. 2727. Respondent's reluctance to accept this stems both from his failure to accept the disputed documents as a part of petitioner's books and records and from confusing petitioner's book entries from its tax entries. The entries that respondent refers to do not constitute petitioner's writedown of its 1975 bad debt losses. The $ 650,000 and $ 600,000 entries were made in 1974 and consisted1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*134 of shifting loss reserves from one account to another. None of these entries were tax entries.
Respondent's second argument is that the petitioner's accounting books and records contained no entry recording the 80 T.C. 571">*587 bad debt expense and the corresponding addition to the bad debt reserve account, Reserve for Losses on Qualifying Real Property Losses, account No. 2727. Respondent maintains that the addition to replenish the Reserve for Losses on Qualifying Real Property Loans, account No. 2727, was not in fact made to the Reserve for Losses on Qualifying Real Property Loans at the end of the taxable year 1975, nor as soon thereafter as possible, as required by
This argument rests primarily on respondent's refusal to consider the disputed documents as a part of petitioner's books and records, a position we have rejected. In addition, respondent maintains that petitioner did not make a "net" entry to account No. 2727 to both write off the bad debt losses for 1975 and to increase the reserve account to the permissible level. Respondent argues that petitioner really made its entries to other accounts and that this net 1983 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 102">*135 entry which on its face appears to comply with the recordkeeping requirements is a "plugged figure." 7
Respondent's third argument, that petitioner's books and records contain no entries recording the bad debt expense and the addition to the bad debt reserve to the Reserve for Losses on Qualified Real Property Loans, is grounded on essentially the same basis as the previous argument.
Though unconvinced, we will for the moment accept respondent's contention that petitioner made its entries to book accounts and that it in so doing was somehow forced to make a plug figure adjustment to the proper tax account. Accepting this, we do not see how petitioner has failed to comply with
The second issue for our decision is whether petitioner may claim payments for the minimum tax for tax preference items as deductions against its income tax liability. Petitioner argues that the minimum tax imposed by
To give effect to the foregoing and other concessions by the parties,
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended.↩
2. Under
3. Petitioner's books and records contain three types of accounts: (1) Financial, (2) those required by Federal Home Loan Bank regulations, and (3) those required for Federal tax purposes. For our purposes, it is only necessary to distinguish accounts maintained for tax purposes from other accounts.↩
4. The term "qualifying real property loans" is defined by
5. This schedule number was left blank. The detail of these chargeoffs was included in "Detail of Loan Losses Supporting Schedule 4" which followed Schedule 4 as part of its 1975 Federal income tax return.↩
6. Petitioner maintains that the cases calling for strict compliance of the recordkeeping requirements do not involve the experience method of providing for the increase in the reserve for bad debts. It distinguishes these cases as providing for strict compliance where the calculation of the deduction is fictional, as in the percentage of income method. Petitioner argues that this case is different in that it is claiming a deduction for actual losses, relying on language in
7. A plugged figure is one that is artificially determined. Generally, this is the amount necessary to make something balance.↩