James J. Lencke and Janene B. Lencke - Page 34

                                       - 34 -                                         
          6211(b)(2)), then there is an understatement of tax.  This                  
          understatement is "substantial" if the excess amount exceeds the            
          greater of $5,000 or 10 percent of the amount of tax required to            
          be shown on the return.  Sec. 6662(d)(1).  However, section                 
          6662(d)(2)(B) provides that the understatement is reduced to the            
          extent that (1) the tax treatment of an item shown on the return            
          was supported by substantial authority or (2) the facts affecting           
          the item's tax treatment are adequately disclosed and there is a            
          reasonable basis for such treatment.                                        
               Petitioners' 1990 Federal income tax return reported a tax             
          liability of $392.  Based upon concessions made by petitioners in           
          the stipulations of facts, without accounting for the contested             
          adjustments, there appears to exist an understatement of tax,               
          which exceeds the greater of $5,000 or 10 percent of the amount             
          of tax required to be shown on the return.                                  
               Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty equal to 20 percent of the           
          portion of the underpayment due to negligence or disregard of               
          rules or regulations.  The term "negligence" includes any failure           
          to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the           
          Internal Revenue Code and "disregard" includes any careless,                
          reckless, or intentional disregard.  Sec. 6662(c).                          
               On their 1991 and 1992 Federal income tax returns,                     
          petitioners admittedly claimed a depreciation deduction for a               
          boat which they now concede is not properly deductible.  Mr.                
          Lencke purchased the boat with no business purpose.  Petitioners            




Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011