Mel T. Nelson - Page 33

                                       - 33 -                                         


               Ordinarily, the current year’s NOL of an S corporation                 
          passes through to its shareholder(s) under section 1366(a)(1)(A).           
          If such a shareholder should lack sufficient basis in his stock             
          in and debt from the corporation to use his share of the NOL                
          currently, it would be disallowed and suspended under section               
          1366(d)(1).  Section 108(d)(7)(B) says that any loss or deduction           
          of an insolvent S corporation with COD that is so suspended shall           
          be treated as an NOL of the corporation and reduced at the                  
          corporate level under section 108(b)(2)(A).  The foregoing would            
          explain how petitioner arrived at the upward basis adjustment he            
          claimed in the amount of $1,375,790, reducing the total COD of              
          $2,030,568 by the amount of the corporate loss of $654,788, and             
          thereby accounting for the entire amount of MAI’s COD.5  Although           
          we have rejected petitioner’s arguments for the upward basis                
          adjustment he claimed, he and his return preparer deserve credit            
          for not taking a return position as aggressive as his counsel               
          argues he was entitled to.                                                  
                                        III.                                          
               Respondent’s and petitioner's briefs in this case and in               
          Winn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-71, and the voluminous                
          literature have devoted inordinate attention to the question of             


               5 Left unanswered is my question supra note 3, asking how              
          petitioner could have had a basis of $1,028,206 in his stock of             
          MAI that respondent did not disallow.                                       




Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011