- 15 -
may not be used as a defense in the instant case. Even if we
assume, arguendo, that the cases apply, in each of those cases
the taxpayer’s attempt to make the election was evident on the
original tax return, the taxpayers had provided most of the
information required, and the information missing was not
significant. See Bond v. Commissioner, supra at 41-42; Taylor v.
Commissioner, supra at 1080; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Commissioner,
supra at 747-750; Columbia Iron & Metal Co. v. Commissioner,
supra at 9; Sperapani v. Commissioner, supra at 329-332; Cary v.
Commissioner, supra at 218; cf. Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C.
258, 264 (1997) (holding that the taxpayers were not entitled to
deduct amounts in excess of those allowed by the Commissioner for
stock contributions because the taxpayers provided “practically
none of the information required by either the statute or the
regulations”), affd. without published opinion 166 F.3d 332 (4th
Cir. 1998). In the instant case, petitioner provided none of the
information required by either the statute or the regulation
regarding the transaction with the ESOP on his original tax
return. Respondent, therefore, had no indication from the
original tax return that the sale had even occurred.
It is clear to the Court that petitioner relied upon Mr.
Midcap’s knowledge in filing his tax returns for 1996. While we
are sympathetic to petitioner regarding Mr. Midcap’s failure to
file a proper election under section 1042 on petitioner’s behalf,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011