- 17 -
when first received, for two reasons: First, respondent argues
that all that is required for a Form 2553 to be sufficiently
complete is the signature of the authorized officer and the
consent of the shareholders, citing Thompson v. Commissioner, 66
T.C. 737 (1976); Brutsche v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1034 (1976),
revd. on other grounds and remanded 585 F.2d 436 (10th Cir.
1978); Garrett & Garrett, P.C. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-
453; and Leve v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-255. Second,
respondent argues that the second submission of the Form 2553
demonstrated the validity of the original submission, permitting
the original submission to be treated as complete and valid.
With respect to the first argument, respondent concededly has
found no case in which the election form was incomplete in
content in exactly the same respects as the one at issue in this
case. However, petitioner has not cited any case where a Form
2553 was found ineffective on the basis of something other than
the absence of valid signatures of an authorizing corporate
officer or consenting shareholders, or untimeliness of filing.
In any event, we need not decide whether the signature of the
authorized officer and the consent of the shareholders are
sufficient in all cases; rather, as discussed below, we hold that
in the circumstances of this case, petitioner is not entitled to
a summary adjudication that the Form 2553 was too incomplete to
be considered valid.
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