Ronald I. and Lois B. Koenig - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         

          15, 1992.  Therefore, petitiioners' return is deemed timely                 
          mailed/timely filed.  Sec. 7502.  Respondent concedes this issue.           
          Issue 5.  Penalty Under Section 6662(a)                                     
               Respondent determined that petitioners' underpayment of tax            
          for 1990 was due to negligence or disregard of rules or                     
          regulations, subjecting them to the accuracy-related penalty of             
          section 6662(a).                                                            
               Section 6662 provides for an accuracy-related penalty equal            
          to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment due to                     
          negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.  For purposes of           
          section 6662, negligence "includes any failure to make a                    
          reasonable attempt to comply with the * * * [income tax laws]"              
          and disregard "includes any careless, reckless, or intentional              
          disregard."  Sec. 6662(c).                                                  
               When petitioners acquired Washington Chocolate, the company            
          was performing poorly and close to bankruptcy.  Through his                 
          business plan and innovation, petitioner increased both the                 
          company's sales and its value.  We accept that as a result of his           
          efforts petitioner had a good faith belief that he was entitled             
          to additional commission payments.  We also accept that                     
          petitioner was sent back and forth between Glico and MEI when he            
          attempted to open discussions about additional payments.  This,             
          however, does not change the fact that petitioners are not                  
          entitled to a bad debt deduction.                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011