- 18 -
As respondent points out, it was not apparent on the face of
the Form 2553 as first received whether it constituted a valid
election. The original submission of the Form 2553 contained two
signatures (the apparent signatures of petitioner and Mary Ann
Johnson) purporting to be shareholder consents; nonetheless, the
Fresno Service Center would have been unable to determine whether
all of the shareholders had consented to the S corporation
election, because the original submission did not list the names
of the shareholders. Further, the Fresno Service Center would
have been unable to determine whether the election was timely,
because the original submission did not contain the date JPS
first had shareholders, the date JPS first had assets, or the
date JPS began doing business. See supra note 7. None of this
information was "readily available to respondent by a cursory
review of the rest of" the Form 2553, as in Leve v. Commissioner,
supra. The Fresno Service Center solicited more information,
respondent argues, in an effort to determine whether the original
submission was valid. The second submission contained sufficient
information from which the Fresno Service Center could determine
whether or not all the shareholders had consented to the election
on the original submission and whether or not the original
submission was a timely election.9 We conclude that, given the
9 In Garrett & Garrett, P.C. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-453, the taxpayer twice submitted a Form 2553, with the
(continued...)
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