Group Administration Premium Services, Inc., et al. - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         

          States v. Scornavacco's Restaurant, Inc., 528 F.2d 19, 23 (7th              
          Cir. 1975) (citing with approval United States v. Theodore, 479             
          F.2d 749, 753 (4th Cir. 1973)).  Petitioner consistently treated            
          GAPS as an incorporated entity beginning in 1986.  Petitioner               
          also caused corporate tax returns to be filed during the prior              
          periods when he now argues GAPS was not in existence.  On its               
          1989 pro forma tax return, GAPS claimed, and respondent allowed,            
          a net operating loss deduction carried forward from its 1988                
          return.  Petitioner held GAPS out as a corporation.  Therefore,             
          regardless of the status of GAPS under Illinois law for the                 
          period January-February 1989, we will treat GAPS as a corporation           
          for Federal income tax purposes for the entire calendar year.               
               Petitioners have also failed to provide evidence of how                
          expenses and distributions should be allocated between the sole             
          proprietorship and the corporation.  Therefore, we will make no             
          adjustment to the amount of GAPS's earnings and profits, or                 
          GAPS's corporate distributions, based on petitioners' corporate             
          existence argument.  In light of petitioners' failure to prove              
          otherwise, we accept respondent's calculations of the 1989                  
          earnings and profits of both JJM and GAPS.                                  
               Under section 301(c)(2), the amount of distributions in                
          excess of earnings and profits is a non-taxable return of capital           
          to the extent of petitioner’s basis in the stock.  We therefore             
          must determine petitioner’s basis in the stock of his                       





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011