Decisions — The 25% Solution

Thanks for sharing!

Image source: Mart9212 (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Image source: Mart9212 (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons


There are several exceptions to the general rule that taxes must be “assessed within three years after a return is filed.” (Internal revenue code section 6501(a))

The decision in 143 T.C. No. 6 (Barkett) turned on one of those exceptions—specifically, whether the taxpayers omitted a substantial amount of income from their returns.

“A substantial amount” is generally an amount in excess of 25% of the gross income stated in the return. The percentage is calculated by dividing the amount of the omission by the gross income reported on the return.

When the exception applies, the IRS has six years (instead of the usual three) to assess tax or issue a notice of deficiency.

In this case, the dispute arose over the bottom part of the fraction–how to calculate the gross income reported on the return.

The taxpayers reported gross income of $394,440 on their 2006 return (including $123,000 of capital gain), and $654,591 on their 2007 return (including $314,000 of capital gain). In relation to the capital gains, they reported amounts realized from the sale of investments of more than $7 million for 2006 and more than $4 million for 2007.

The IRS said the taxpayers omitted gross compensation income of $629,850 from their 2006 return and $431,957 from their 2007 return. The IRS sent a notice about the underpayment more than three years but less than six years after the taxpayers filed their 2006 and 2007 returns.

The taxpayers agreed with the underpayment amounts. However, the taxpayers said the omissions were not 25% or more of their gross income and the exception to the three year statute did not apply.

Their argument: “Gross income” should include the amounts realized from the sale of investment assets. Put another way, the taxpayers wanted to include sales proceeds of $7 million for 2006 and $4 million for 2007 in the “gross income” portion of the calculation instead of only the gains from those sales.

The IRS says only the gains from the investment sales are included in gross income for purposes of the exception to the statute of limitations.

What do you think?

or

THE COURT’S DECISION

For a full explanation, hover your mouse over the link

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Canine silence Image source: wpclipart.com   In the Arthur Conan Doyle short story, Silver Blaze, fictional detective Sherlock Holmes solved the case by inferring intent from silence—the significance of a dog who didn't bark. In a tax court case this week (149 T.C. No. 2, Gregory), internal revenue ...
Decisions — Eat, drink, deduct Image source: Theodoor Rombouts , via Wikimedia Commons  Even if you don't eat like a hockey player, you may be interested in the tax court's take on the rules limiting deductions for meals. Under current tax law, meal and entertainment expenses are not deductible unless the expenses are...
Decisions — Worth the whistle Image source: Zephyris, via Wikimedia Commons   A taxpayer thinks his information is worth the whistle. The IRS says the information is not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in the taxpayer's face…or something along those Shakespearean lines. Who's right? In general, tax law pr...
Decisions — Foreseeing anticipation Image source: https://wpclipart.com/   According to Dr. Seuss, sometimes the questions are complicated, and the answers are simple. The good doc probably wasn't referring to tax law, but that doesn't stop tax practitioners from anticipating a simple answer before researching the question...
Sorry, wrong answer :(
Right answer!
For the IRS. We hold that “gross income” includes gains from the sale of investment assets, not the entire amounts realized from such sales. Under this rule, the taxpayers’ omitted gross income for 2006 and 2007 exceeds 25% of the gross income they stated in their returns for those years. Therefore, the six-year limitations period applies to those years and the notice of deficiency is timely with respect to them.
Posted in Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions Tagged with: , ,