§531 — Imposition of accumulated earnings tax
88 cases·9 followed·6 distinguished·1 overruled·72 cited—10% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §531
In addition to other taxes imposed by this chapter, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the accumulated taxable income (as defined in section 535) of each corporation described in section 532, an accumulated earnings tax equal to 20 percent of the accumulated taxable income.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.531-1 Imposition of tax
88 Citing Cases
574 (1945), was effectively overruled by United States v.
Gottesman is inapposite.
In Gottesman, this Court held that, since the consolidated return regulations did not mandate a consolidated calculation of the accumulated earnings tax under section 531, the taxpayer was permitted to use a separate company calculation.
In Gottesman, this Court held that, since the consolidated return regulations did not mandate a consolidated calculation of the accumulated earnings tax under section 531, the taxpayer was permitted to use a separate company calculation.
deficiency and in accordance with section 534(b), respondent issued to petitioner a Notice of Intent to Assert Accumulated Earnings Tax stating that respondent intended to issue a notice of deficiency for the tax on accumulated earnings pursuant to section 531. Petitioner submitted a timely statement pursuant to section 534(c). Subsequently, respondent issued a notice of deficiency in which respondent determined, inter alia, that petitioner is liable for the accumulated earnings tax pursuant to
notice of deficiency in this case, respondent notified petitioner that respondent proposed to issue a notice of deficiency for fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989 including a determination that petitioner is liable for accumulated earnings tax under section 531. Petitioner submitted a timely statement under section 534(c) stating the grounds on which it relied to establish that it had not accumulated earnings beyond the reasonable needs of its business. In this statement, petitioner alleged that
. Petitioner's underlying case was decided at Saltzman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-641. Several consolidated cases were decided by that opinion. The primary issue involving petitioner was whether it was liable for accumulated earnings tax under section 531. 1(...continued) effect for the years in issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 3 - Petitioner's shareholders and board of directors met on December 1, 1987. The minutes of that meeting show that pe
But as we have recently made clear, and as the Commissioner does not dispute, a regulation like the one here is legislative, not interpretative. See Green Valley, No. 17379-19, 159 T.C., slip op. at 8–15. Put simply, Treasury erroneously assumed the regulations were interpretative. That assumption colored its view of its responsibilities u
In Gottesman the issue was whether the regulations promulgated by the Secretary under section 1502 required accumulated taxable income for section 531 purposes to be calculated on a separate company basis or on a consolidated basis.
ply, the aggregate ofthe taxes imposed by section 541 on the separate undistributed personal holding company income ofthe members ofthe group which are personal holding companies; (d) Ifparagraph (b) ofthis section does not apply, the tax imposed by section 531 on the consolidated accumulatedtaxable income (see §1.1502-43); (e) The tax imposed by section 594(a) in lieu ofthe taxes imposed by section 11 or 1201 on the taxable income ofa life insurance department ofthe common parent ofa group whic
the aggregate of the taxes imposed by section 541 on the separate undistributed personal holding company income of the members of the group which are personal holding companies; (d) If paragraph (b) of this section does not apply, the tax imposed by section 531 on the consolidated accumulated taxable income (see §1.1502-43); (e) The tax imposed by section 594(a) in lieu of the taxes imposed by section 11 or 1201 on the taxable income of a life insurance department of the common parent of a group
eed for its operation 6 Given this concession, we conclude that sec. 7491(a), which in certain circumstances places the burden of proof upon the Commissioner, is not applicable here. - 23 - and had to expend to avoid the accumulated earnings tax of section 531. Respondent asserts that Beiner performed minimal, nonspecialized services for petitioner during each subject year and that those services did not entitle petitioner to deduct the disputed payments as compensation. Petitioner argues in its
Section 531 imposes a penalty tax on the accumulated taxable income of a corporation that is availed of for the purpose of avoiding tax with respect to its shareholders by permitting earnings and profits (earnings) to accumulate instead of distributing them. Secs. 531 and 532(a). The purpose of the penalty tax is to compel the corporation to distri
Tax Liability on Installment Sale Income To Be Received in Years After 1995 Section 531 imposes a tax on a corporate taxpayer’s accumulated taxable income.
ailed of for the purpose of avoiding income tax with respect to - 2 - its shareholders, by permitting its earnings and profits to accumulate rather than to be divided and distributed, and was thus liable for the accumulated earnings tax imposed by section 531. Unless otherwise indicated, all section 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. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have bee
Whether Petitioner Permitted Its 1995 Earnings To Accumulate Beyond the Reasonable Needs of the Business--Section 531 Section 531 imposes an additional 39.6-percent tax on accumulated taxable income.
In Gottesman & Co., we considered whether the taxpayer (the common parent of an - 49 - affiliated group) was required to compute “accumulated taxable income” (for purposes of the accumulated earnings tax, section 531) on a consolidated basis as the Commissioner contended, or on a separate-company basis as the taxpayer contended.
In Gottesman & Co., we considered whether the taxpayer (the common parent of an affiliated group) was required to compute “accumulated taxable income” (for purposes of the accumulated earnings tax, section 531) on a consolidated basis as the Commissioner contended, or on a separate-company basis as the taxpayer contended.
On May 15, 1996, respondent notified petitioner, pursuant to section 534(b), that respondent intended to issue a notice of deficiency determining that petitioner is liable for the accumulated earnings tax under section 531 for FY 1992, 1993, and 1994.
Companies Both petitioner and respondent rely on expert testimony with respect to this factor. Expert testimony is appropriate to help 7 Bearing in mind that respondent has not determined that petitioner is liable for the accumulated earnings tax of sec. 531, it is possible that she would agree that the large increase in petitioner's retained earnings was necessary for the reasonable needs of petitioner's business. - 27 - the Court understand an area requiring specialized training, knowledge, or
yond the reasonable needs of the business during the years 1987, 1988, and 1989; (2) whether NITCO was availed of for the proscribed purpose of avoiding income tax with respect to its shareholders and is liable for the accumulated earnings tax under section 531,2 for 1987, 1988, and 1989; (3) whether NITCO, for 1987, 1988, and 1989, is entitled to business deductions for certain legal expenses it incurred and/or paid; (4) whether petitioner Robert G.
Discussion Section 531 imposes a penalty tax on the accumulated taxable income of a corporation that is availed of for the purpose of avoiding tax with respect to its shareholders by permitting earnings and profits to accumulate instead of distributing them.
yond the reasonable needs of the business during the years 1987, 1988, and 1989; (2) whether NITCO was availed of for the proscribed purpose of avoiding income tax with respect to its shareholders and is liable for the accumulated earnings tax under section 531,2 for 1987, 1988, and 1989; (3) whether NITCO, for 1987, 1988, and 1989, is entitled to business deductions for certain legal expenses it incurred and/or paid; (4) whether petitioner Robert G.
8,387.70 29,869.56 Due to concessions, the issues for decision are whether petitioner, who owned and operated a “truck stop,” is liable for the accumulated earnings tax imposed by section 531 for 1972,1973, and 1974, and if so, the extent of such liability.