9
the Commissioner, revoke or amend it merely because events do not
unfold as planned. See, e.g., J.E. Riley Inv. Co. v.
Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55 (1940); Pacific Natl. Co. v. Welch, 304
U.S. 191 (1938). Subject to a few narrow exceptions, "once the
taxpayer makes an elective choice, he is stuck with it." Roy H.
Park Broadcasting, Inc. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 1093, 1134
(1982).
In Pacific Natl. Co., "often regarded as the fundamental
authority for the development" of the doctrine of election,
Estate of Stamos v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 468, 473 (1970), the
taxpayer had the option to treat certain income under the
deferred payment or installment method. It reported the income
using one method and later sought a refund based on a computation
under the other method. The Supreme Court refused to allow this,
holding:
Change from one method to the other * * * would require
recomputation and readjustment of tax liability for
subsequent years and impose burdensome uncertainties upon
the administration of the revenue laws. * * * There is
nothing to suggest that Congress intended to permit a
taxpayer, after expiration of the time within which a return
is to be made, to have his tax liability computed and
settled according to the other method. * * *
Pacific Natl. Co. v. Welch, supra at 194; see also Grynberg v.
Commissioner, supra at 261 (quoting Estate of Stamos v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 468, 473 (1970)); Estate of Wilbur v.
Commissioner, 43 T.C. at 473, and cases cited therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011