-10-
effective.4 Id. sec. 5.04, 1999-1 C.B. at 505. Petitioners’ and
SPK’s election statements designated 2000, not 2001, as the first
taxable year for which the election was to be effective.
Petitioners and SPK accordingly never made an election for 2001.
Instead, petitioners ask us to construe their invalid attempt to
make an election for 2000 as a valid election for 2001. We
decline to do so.
Moreover, the unsuccessful attempted elections for 2000 were
untimely even for tax year 2001. Mark-to-market election
statements for 2001 would have had to be filed with SPK’s and
petitioners’ tax returns (or requests for extensions) by the due
dates of petitioners’ and SPK’s tax returns for 2000.5 Id. sec.
5.03. Petitioners and SPK each attached their Forms 3115 to
their respective tax returns for 2000 that they filed in October
2001 and September 2001 pursuant to extensions. Although
petitioners and SPK each requested extensions to file their
returns for 2000, they each failed to attach their Forms 3115 to
their requests for extensions to file as required. SPK’s and
petitioners’ requests were therefore similarly untimely for 2001.
See id. We conclude that petitioners and SPK did not make
effective mark-to-market elections under section 475(f) for 2001.
4Cf. sec. 1362(b)(3) (treating an untimely S corporation
election as made for the next taxable year). There is no
comparable provision in sec. 475.
5Petitioners’ tax return for 2000 was due on Apr. 16, 2001,
and SPK’s tax return for 2000 was due on Mar. 15, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011