Thomas and Janice Gleason - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          and profits by reason of prior periods of operation as a C                  
          corporation and those without.  The typical rule for entities               
          without earnings and profits is that distributions are not                  
          included in a shareholder’s gross income to extent that they do             
          not exceed the adjusted basis of his or her stock (but are                  
          applied to reduce basis), while any distribution amount in excess           
          of basis is treated as gain from the sale or exchange of                    
          property.  Sec. 1368(b).  For S corporations with accumulated               
          earnings and profits, dividend treatment applies in enumerated              
          circumstances.  Sec. 1368(c).                                               
          III.  Analysis                                                              
               The crux of the dispute between the parties here involves              
          the amount of NOL that petitioners are entitled to claim with               
          respect to Alofs and Target in 1996 and to carry back to 1993,              
          1994, and 1995.  This computation turns on determination of                 
          Mr. Gleason’s basis in Alofs and Target, as basis limits the                
          allowable loss pursuant to section 1366(d)(1).  Likewise, the               
          basis calculation will be affected by issues pertaining to                  
          Mr. Gleason’s pro rata share of ordinary income and                         
          distributions, as these will generate adjustments to basis under            
          section 1367(a).                                                            
               A.  Pro Rata Ordinary Income From Schedules K-1                        
               Respondent contends that petitioners’ income for 1995 should           
          be adjusted to reflect an additional $438,571 as Mr. Gleason’s              






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011