Michael T. Caracci and Cindy W. Caracci, et al. - Page 59




                                       - 59 -                                         
          as to the excise taxes imposed upon the individual shareholders             
          of the Sta-Home for-profit entities.                                        
               We conclude that each of the disqualified person/petitioners           
          is jointly and severally liable for the initial and additional              
          taxes under section 4958(a)(1) and (b) as to the excess benefits.           
          The effect of our holding is that the individual petitioners are            
          jointly and severally liable for the total excess benefit of                
          $5,164,000 from the three Sta-Home entities, while the Sta-Home             
          for profit entities are liable for taxes as specified in the                
          above table.  In so concluding, we decline at this time                     
          petitioners’ invitation to abate the initial and additional                 
          excise taxes pursuant to section 4961 (second-tier tax abatement)           
          and section 4962(a) (first-tier tax abatement).  Because the                
          excess benefit transactions have never been corrected for                   
          purposes of section 4958(f)(6), petitioners’ invitation is, at              
          best, premature.  Petitioners have not as of yet met the                    
          prerequisite for the requested abatement; i.e., a timely                    
          correction.  In this regard, however, we note that sections                 
          4961(a) and 4963(e)(1) generally allow for the abatement of a               
          section 4958 excise tax if the excess benefit transaction giving            
          rise thereto is corrected within 90 days after our decision                 
          sustaining the tax becomes final.  Cf. Morrissey v. Commissioner,           
          T.C. Memo. 1998-443.  Because the issue of whether petitioners              








Page:  Previous  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011