- 3 -
2, and $15 in dividend income. In addition, in Schedule E,
Supplemental Income and Loss, petitioner improperly reported a
$7,584 passive loss. On January 24, 2005, respondent issued the
aforementioned notice of deficiency. Petitioner then filed a
timely petition with this Court disputing only his liability for
the accuracy-related penalty. A trial was held on November 27,
2006, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Discussion
I. Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner argues that he is not liable for the accuracy-
related section 6662(a) penalty because he relied on his
accountant for the preparation of his 2002 tax return. In
addition, petitioner contends that he and his accountant were
confused by the fact that petitioner’s employer, Altana, Inc.,
had issued two separate Forms W-2 for the 2002 taxable year.
Petitioner asserts that he believed that only one of the Forms W-
2 was correct and that one Form W-2 superseded the other. In
support of this contention, petitioner has provided two letters
from his accountant, David M. Beail (Mr. Beail), sent to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in August and October 2004 in an
attempt to persuade the IRS to abate the section 6662(a) penalty.
In the October 2004 letter, Mr. Beail asserts that “It was our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007