- 29 -
would have been able to offset part of the profit the
Commissioner determined for the taxpayer’s business. Id. at 208.
We concluded in Patton that it was the taxpayer’s
misclassification of assets (and not the Commissioner’s
determinations) that created the need to “revoke (modify)” the
taxpayer’s section 179 election. Id. at 210. Consequently, we
held in Patton that it was not an abuse of discretion for the
Commissioner to refuse to allow the taxpayer to “revoke (modify)”
his section 179 election. Id. at 211.
Although petitioners are asking to make rather than “revoke
(modify)” a section 179 election, the reasons underlying our
decision in Patton apply also to the instant case. Like the
taxpayer in Patton, petitioners’ perceived need to file section
179 elections stems from petitioners’ misunderstanding of the
proper tax treatment of particular items and the understatement
of the amounts they paid for section 179 property during the
years in issue. We shall not carve out an exception to the
general requirements of section 1.179-5(a), Income Tax Regs., to
permit petitioners to make an otherwise untimely section 179
election.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011