James L. and Leta A. Thurman - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         

          EMFI on its corporate return, and petitioners have amended their            
          tax return in an effort to consistently reflect the assertion               
          that EMFI did not elect to treat its distributions as taxable to            
          the extent of earnings and profits.                                         
               Of particular importance in this case is EMFI's                        
          unwillingness to amend its return to include an election.  In               
          prior cases in which we have applied the doctrine of substantial            
          compliance to except taxpayers from literal compliance, taxpayers           
          have argued that they intended to make the required election.               
          Consistent with the assertion of substantial compliance,                    
          taxpayers have in many cases amended their returns to include a             
          consistent election statement.8  The Commissioner has also                  

               8For examples of cases in which substantial compliance was             
          found, see, e.g., United States v. Van Keppel, 321 F.2d 717 (10th           
          Cir. 1963) (late filing of required agreement allowed); Taylor v.           
          Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1071 (1977) (taxpayer offered to amend to             
          comply with any election requirements); Hewlett-Packard Co. v.              
          Commissioner, 67 T.C. 736 (1977) (late filing required); Columbia           
          Iron & Metal Co. v. Commissioner, supra (required written                   
          declaration filed subsequent to filing return); Cary v.                     
          Commissioner, 41 T.C. 214 (1963) (election filed upon learning of           
          defect).                                                                    
               For examples of cases in which substantial compliance has              
          been denied, see, e.g., Fisher Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 843            
          F.2d 224 (6th Cir. 1988), affg. 87 T.C. 116 (1986) (taxpayer                
          filed Form 970 late); Kerry v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 327 (1987)             
          (taxpayer amended corporate returns to include sec. 48(d)                   
          election); Estate of Gunland v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1453 (1987)           
          (taxpayer attached required agreement to amended return); Young             
          v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 831 (1984) (election attached to amended           
          return), affd. 783 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1986); Thorrez v.                    
          Commissioner, 31 T.C. 655 (1958), affd. 272 F.2d 945 (6th Cir.              
          1959) (taxpayer amended return prior to notice of deficiency).              
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011