Darrow v. Commissioner
64 T.C. 217; 1975 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 149 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The personal holding company tax is applied strictly and automatically based on objective statutory criteria, without regard to the taxpayer's intent or good-faith reliance on professional advice. A taxpayer cannot treat dividends paid after the close of a fiscal year as paid during that year if no dividends were actually paid during the fiscal year itself, due to the statutory limitation in IRC § 563(b).
Facts:
- Rendar Enterprises, Ltd. (Rendar) was a corporation with two 50-percent shareholders, Kenneth Farmer Darrow and Renee Liddle.
- Over 80% of Rendar's gross income in its 1968 fiscal year, which ended July 31, 1968, consisted of rents.
- To avoid being classified as a personal holding company (PHC), Rendar's board of directors declared a $2,000 dividend on March 27, 1968.
- Rendar was financially capable of paying the dividend when it was declared.
- Acting in good faith on the advice of its experienced certified public accountants, Rendar delayed payment of the dividend until after its fiscal year ended.
- Rendar paid no dividends during its fiscal year ending July 31, 1968.
- On September 27, 1968, within 2.5 months of its fiscal year-end, Rendar paid the $2,000 dividend to its shareholders.
Procedural Posture:
- Rendar Enterprises, Ltd. filed its corporate income tax return for its fiscal year ending July 31, 1968.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) determined a deficiency of $16,249.17 in Rendar's income tax, asserting that Rendar was a personal holding company subject to the 70% tax under IRC § 541.
- Kenneth Farmer Darrow, as trustee for Rendar (petitioner), filed a petition in the Tax Court of the United States, a court of first instance for tax disputes, to challenge the Commissioner's deficiency determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the personal holding company tax under IRC § 541 apply to a corporation that meets the statute's technical definition, even if its failure to pay a timely dividend was based on good-faith reliance on erroneous professional advice?
Opinions:
Majority - Forrester, Judge
Yes, the personal holding company tax applies automatically when the statutory criteria are met, regardless of the taxpayer's good faith or reliance on professional advice. The court held that the statutory language of the Internal Revenue Code is unambiguous and must be applied strictly. Under IRC § 563(b), the amount of a dividend paid after the close of the fiscal year that can be treated as paid during that fiscal year is limited to 10% of the dividends actually paid during the year. Since Rendar paid zero dividends during its fiscal year, the amount that could be carried back was zero. The court rejected the petitioner's equitable arguments, stating that it cannot rewrite a clear statute. It also held that the PHC tax is an automatic imposition intended by Congress and does not contain a 'reasonable cause' exception for taxpayers who inadvertently fail to comply, unlike other specific penalty provisions in the Code.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the personal holding company tax provisions are to be interpreted with rigid literalism. It establishes that equitable arguments, such as good-faith reliance on professional advice or the absence of the specific abuse the law was designed to prevent, are irrelevant in the face of clear statutory language. The case serves as a stark warning to tax practitioners and corporations about the importance of precise compliance with the mechanical rules of the Code, as courts will not create exceptions for 'reasonable' mistakes. Future cases involving PHC status will be bound by this strict constructionist approach, limiting defenses to purely statutory arguments.
