- -9
and his other attorney and the attorney representing petitioner's
ex-wife agreed that he was entitled to deduct the payments to his
ex-wife as alimony, and that the payments would be taxable to his
ex-wife. Petitioner testified that one of his attorneys had been
a judge, and he considered him very knowledgeable with respect to
interpreting the agreement for him. Under these circumstances,
it appears to us that petitioner had reasonable cause for
deducting the $30,000 he paid to his ex-wife in 1990 and $10,000
of the amount of the alimony deduction claimed in 1991. Even
though the advice petitioner received was incorrect, considering
all the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioner
has shown reasonable cause for the deduction claimed as alimony
in 1990 and for $10,000 of the deduction claimed as alimony in
1991. There has been no reasonable cause shown for the claim as
an alimony deduction of the other $25,000 claimed in 1991 and the
claiming of that deduction was negligent.
We, therefore, hold that petitioner is not liable for the
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for the year 1990
and is only liable for the accuracy-related penalty on $25,000 of
the amount deducted as alimony for the year 1991. Petitioner has
failed to show that he had any reasonable cause for taking this
$25,000 alimony deduction.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011