- 13 -
According to the regulation, the election is to be made in the
form of statements attached to the return. Not only did
petitioner’s return for the year of sale fail to include such
statements, it reported none of the information required to be
provided in such statements. Indeed, the return made no mention
of the sale at all.
The Commissioner must be notified in some manner of a
taxpayer’s intentions to elect the benefit of section 1042 in
order to facilitate the Commissioner’s duty to ensure compliance
with the tax laws and minimize disputes between taxpayers and the
Internal Revenue Service. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc. v.
United States, 743 F.2d 781, 795 (11th Cir. 1984); Young v.
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 831, 841 (1984), affd. 783 F.2d 1201 (5th
Cir. 1986). As we stated in Dunavant v. Commissioner, 63 T.C.
316, 320 (1974): “We are not at liberty to infer that an
election existed when the unequivocal proof required by Congress
does not exist.” Petitioner did not alert respondent to the
intended “election” under section 1042 until respondent received
the amended tax return on November 28, 2000, over 3 years after
the due date of the original tax return.
3(...continued)
filed the original tax return on or before Apr. 15, 1997.
Petitioner’s first amended tax return was not received by
respondent until Nov. 28, 2000. We conclude that petitioner did
not take the appropriate corrective action in order to receive an
automatic extension of time for filing the election under sec.
1042.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011