Rountree Cotton Co. v. Commissioner , 12 F. App'x 641 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                                                          F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAR 29 2001
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    ROUNTREE COTTON CO., INC.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                            No. 00-9009
    (T.C. No. 24014-97)
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL                             (U.S. Tax Court)
    REVENUE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT           *
    Before TACHA , Chief Judge, LUCERO , Circuit Judge, and       BROWN , ^ District
    Judge.
    Appellant appeals the tax court’s order dismissing its petition for a
    redetermination of its tax liability for the years 1994 and 1995. We exercise
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    26 U.S.C. § 7482
     and affirm.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge for the District of
    ^
    Kansas, sitting by designation.
    I.
    The appellant taxpayer made interest-free loans to a variety of other entities
    in which the shareholders of the taxpayer owned an interest. During an audit, the
    Commissioner determined that the interest foregone on the interest-free loans
    should be imputed to the taxpayer pursuant to I.R.C. § 7872. Accordingly, he
    increased the taxpayer’s income for the taxable years of 1994 and 1995, which
    resulted in tax deficiencies for those years. The taxpayer petitioned the tax court
    for a redetermination of its tax liability for the years in question. The tax court
    ruled in favor of the Commissioner and this appeal followed.
    II.
    This case was decided on stipulated facts. We review a tax court’s
    conclusions of law de novo.   St. Charles Inv. Co. v. C.I.R. , 
    232 F.3d 773
    , 775
    (10th Cir. 2000).
    The taxpayer made several arguments to the tax court in support of its
    general contention that the interest-free loans it made are not subject to the
    imputation rules of § 7872. The imputation rules apply to any “below-market
    loan directly or indirectly between a corporation and any shareholder of such
    corporation.” I.R.C. § 7872(c)(1)(C). The taxpayer argued that § 7872 applies
    only to loans by a corporation to its majority shareholder or to loans by a
    corporation to an entity in which one of the lending corporation’s shareholders
    -2-
    owns a majority interest. As none of the recipients of the loans in question in this
    case are majority shareholders of the taxpayer, nor are any of the recipients
    entities of which a majority shareholder is also a shareholder of the taxpayer, the
    taxpayer argued that § 7872 cannot apply to the loans at issue. Applying
    traditional rules of statutory construction, the tax court held that the language of
    § 7872 was broad enough to encompass the facts of this case and ruled in favor of
    the Commissioner.
    For substantially the same reasons given by the tax court, we agree that the
    interest-free loans made by the taxpayer are subject to the imputation rules of
    § 7872. Accordingly, the district court’s order of dismissal is AFFIRMED.
    ENTERED PER CURIAM
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-9009

Citation Numbers: 12 F. App'x 641

Judges: Brown, Lucero, Per Curiam, Tacha

Filed Date: 3/29/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023