- 83 -
the taxpayer either had "substantial authority" for, or
adequately disclosed, the tax treatment shown on the return.
Sec. 6662(d)(2)(B).
Alice Berger provided enough information on her return for
respondent to identify the potential controversy arising from the
omission of $229,396--the amount the revenue agent's report had
included on the 1988 joint return for the prior year--from her
share of Woodbine's ordinary income for 1989. See Schirmer v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 277, 285-286 (1987).
This leaves the question whether Alice Berger's 1989 return
provided enough information for respondent to identify the
potential controversy concerning her disposal of Woodbine. On
that score, her 1989 return reported the sale proceeds of
$680,000 and claimed a basis of $680,000, resulting in no
reported gain. This disclosure was not sufficient to apprise
respondent of the potential controversy.
We therefore address whether Alice Berger had substantial
authority for her 1989 return positions. We decide whether a
taxpayer had substantial authority by using the same analysis and
the same precedents that we would use in deciding whether the
taxpayer's treatment of the item was proper. Antonides v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 686, 702 (1988), affd. 893 F.2d 656 (4th
Cir. 1990). We consider the authorities at the time the return
was filed, or at the end of the taxable year in question, even if
those authorities are ultimately held inapplicable. Collins v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-478, affd. 3 F.3d 625 (2d Cir.
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011