12
the items in issue or if the relevant facts relating to the tax
treatment were adequately disclosed on the return. Sec.
6661(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
"Substantial authority" requires that, when the facts and
authorities are analyzed with respect to the petitioners' case,
the weight of the authorities that support the petitioners'
position should be substantial when compared with those
supporting the contrary position. H. Conf. Rept. 97-760 at 575
(1982), 1982-2 C.B. 600, 650; see Schirmer v. Commissioner, 89
T.C. 277, 283-284 (1987). A position that is arguable but fairly
unlikely to prevail in court would not meet the substantial
authority standard. Sec. 1.6661-3(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners argue that there was substantial authority for
their position, in particular Rev. Rul. 75-144, supra, and,
therefore, the section 6661 addition to tax should not apply. At
the time petitioners filed their return, however, Underwood v.
Commissioner, supra, had been decided by the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, affirming our decision in that case, and we
had also decided Gilday v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-242.
Both of these cases ruled in favor of respondent and clearly
indicated the inapplicability of that ruling to situations such
as are involved herein. See supra pp. 9-10. Thus Rev. Rul. 75-
144 can afford no comfort to petitioners in terms of "substantial
authority", to say nothing of the fact that as our previous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011