11
taxpayer elected one of several allowable alternatives in the
amended return. Goldstone v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 113, 116
(1975). However, mere
Oversight, poor judgment, ignorance of the law,
misunderstanding of the law, unawareness of the tax
consequences of making an election, miscalculation, and
unexpected subsequent events have all been held insufficient
to mitigate the binding effect of elections made under a
variety of provisions of the Code.
Estate of Stamos v. Commissioner, supra at 474 (citations
omitted).
We find that petitioners' desire to amend their returns is
based on the type of justifications enumerated in Estate of
Stamos. Thus, pursuant to the doctrine of election, petitioners
may not change their election to deduct preproductive expenses
without the approval of the Commissioner. Petitioners have not
received the approval of the Commissioner and, therefore, are not
entitled to revoke their election.
Refund of 1986 Overpayment
Petitioners did not file their corporate or personal joint
Federal income tax returns for 1986 through 1990 until in or
about July 1991. Petitioners received extensions to file only
for their 1986 and 1989 returns, which were due August 15, 1987,
and August 15, 1990, respectively. The IRS selected petitioners'
1986 through 1990 corporate and personal returns for examination
in August 1991 and commenced an audit thereof in May 1992.
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