-11-
indebtedness in that year.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the character of the amounts
dispersed to petitioners from Delivery was that of a dividend, we
still believe respondent should prevail on the grounds that
petitioners are precluded by the duty of consistency from denying
that the amounts were loans. See Bartel v. Commissioner, 54 T.C.
25 (1970).
Petitioners consistently maintained that the shareholder
accounts represented loans, not dividends. The accounts were
written off only shortly after the audit of years 1982 through 1984
was resolved. That was the first time petitioners had taken the
position that the amounts received in prior years were dividends.
The statute of limitations had closed on those prior years.
A taxpayer who obtains a benefit by taking a position in one
year cannot disavow that position in a later year to the detriment
of the Government. See Commissioner v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co.,
59 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1932); see also Commissioner v. National
Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 149 (1974) (citing
Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 477 (1940); Beltzer v. United
States, 495 F.2d 211 (8th Cir. 1974)).
Issue 3. Accuracy-Related Penalty
The final issue is whether petitioners are liable for the 20-
percent accuracy-related penalty for underpayment of tax
attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.
Sec. 6662(a) and (b)(1). Petitioners contend that they should not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011