Inez Meilak - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                    Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's                
          Federal income taxes, together with penalties, as follows:                  
                                             Penalty                                  
                    Year           Deficiency         Sec. 6662(a)                    
                    1989      $5,390              $944                                
                    1990      4,046               779                                 
               By Amendment to Answer, respondent asserted penalties under            
          section 6663(a) for 1989 and 1990 in the amounts of $4,042 and              
          $3,034, respectively.                                                       
               The issues for decision are:  (1) Whether petitioner                   
          understated her income from tips for the years in issue; (2)                
          whether petitioner is liable for fraud penalties pursuant to                
          section 6663(a); and (3) if not liable for the fraud penalties,             
          whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties                 
          pursuant to section 6662(a).                                                
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and are so found.              
          Petitioner resided in Astoria, New York, when her petition was              
          filed.                                                                      
               For clarity and convenience, our findings of fact and                  
          opinion have been combined.                                                 
               During the years in issue, petitioner worked full-time as a            
          waitress at Sandomenico New York, Inc. (Sandomenico), an upscale,           
          expensive restaurant in New York City, New York.  The principal             
          issue in this case is the amount of tip income earned by                    
          petitioner at this job.                                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011