George Johnson, Jr. - Page 19

                                               - 19 -                                                 

            particular circumstances of this case, petitioner is not entitled                         
            to a summary ruling, based on the incompleteness of the Form                              
            2553, that JPS failed to make a valid S corporation election.                             
                  Fraud                                                                               
                  As noted earlier, insofar as JPS's S corporation status is a                        
            necessary component of an issue on which respondent bears the                             
            burden of proof, such as fraud, respondent would have the burden                          
            of demonstrating the validity of JPS's S corporation election.                            
            Respondent would be unable to carry this burden, because he would                         
            be unable to show that the Form 2553 was timely, given the                                
            stipulations: (1) That the Form 2553 was stamped "Received" on                            
            November 26, 1976 (2 days after the last day for filing the                               
            Form), and (2) that it is unknown whether the Form 2553 was                               
            mailed, transported by private courier, or hand delivered.                                
            (Thus, respondent would not be able to demonstrate timely filing                          
            on the basis of section 7502.)  However, respondent need not rely                         
            on JPS's S corporation status to prove fraud in this case,                                
            because he has determined other underpayments not related to S                            
            corporation income from JPS, and proof that some part of any of                           
            these other underpayments was due to fraud would suffice to                               
            establish the fraud penalty with respect to the entire                                    

                  9(...continued)                                                                     
            second submission much more complete than the first, but in that                          
            case the first submission did not contain any signatures                                  
            representing shareholder consents and was therefore invalid.                              





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