Grady Whitlock Leasing Corp. v. Commissioner
Opinion
*482 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *483
TANNENWALD,
This case was submitted*484 fully stipulated under Rule 122. 1 The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein and found accordingly.
Petitioner is a corporation with its principal office, at the time of the filing of its petition, in Beckley, West Virginia. It filed its 1991 and 1992 income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, Service Center.
The sole shareholder of petitioner is also the sole shareholder of Whitlock Realty, Incorporated (Realty). During the 1991 taxable year, petitioner sold a motor home to Realty for $ 13,675.34. The original cost of the motor home was $ 17,000. On its 1991 tax return, petitioner deducted the $ 3,325 difference.
During the taxable years 1991 and 1992, petitioner maintained insurance on the life of its principal officer and shareholder in order to obtain financing for the purchase*485 of automobiles. Petitioner paid premiums of $ 16,005 for 1991 and $ 21,340 for 1992. Petitioner was also the beneficiary of the policy. During the years at issue, petitioner received no payments from the insurance policy. Petitioner deducted the amounts of the premiums paid as insurance expense.
During the taxable years 1991 and 1992, petitioner leased automobiles through long-term contracts and reported the income therefrom as rental income. Petitioner used the cash receipts and disbursements method to report most of its rental activity. However, for the years at issue as well as prior years, petitioner used the accrual method to report its tax expenses related to its automobile rental activity. The tax payments in question were not made until the year following the taxable year to which they would relate under an accrual accounting system. Petitioner's accrued tax expenses for 1991 were $ 25,335.44 and for 1992 were $ 34,305.96.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's determinations are incorrect.
No deduction shall be allowed in respect of any loss from the sale or exchange of property, directly or indirectly, between persons specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (b). * * * Two corporations which are members of the same controlled group (as defined in subsection (f));
*487 Premiums paid on any life insurance policy covering the life of any officer or employee, or of any person financially interested in any trade or business carried on by the taxpayer, when the taxpayer is directly or indirectly a beneficiary under such policy.
Here, the insurance policy covered the life of the principal officer and shareholder of petitioner. Since petitioner was the beneficiary of the policy, the payment of the premiums may not be deducted, regardless of whether they would otherwise be deductible as a business expense.
Petitioner used the cash receipts and disbursements method to report the income from its long-term rental of automobiles but*488 deducted tax expenses related to that rental activity on the accrual method. The tax payments in question were not made until the year following the taxable year to which they would relate under an accrual accounting system. Under
Under Expenditures are to be deducted for the taxable year in which actually made. * * * a taxpayer who uses the cash method of accounting in computing gross income from his trade or business shall use the cash method in computing expenses of such trade or business. * * *
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.