- 2 -
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
TANNENWALD, Judge: This case is again before us because of
differing computations for entry of decision under Rule 1551
submitted to implement our earlier opinion, Lemishow v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 110 (1998). In that opinion, we held that
none of the $480,414 withdrawn from petitioner's Individual
Retirement Accounts and Keogh plans during 1993 constituted
qualified rollovers and thus the total amount of the withdrawals
was includable in income. We also held that the accuracy-related
penalty (the penalty) under section 6662 did not apply to the
underpayment of tax attributable to $377,895 of the unreported
income which petitioner reinvested in an unsuccessful rollover
attempt, but that the penalty did apply to that portion of the
underpayment attributable to the $102,519 which petitioner did
not reinvest.
The penalty is "an amount equal to 20 percent of the portion
of the underpayment * * * which is attributable to", in the
instant case, negligence. Sec. 6662(a) and (b). In determining
the amount of the penalty, respondent first calculated the total
underpayment. Respondent then calculated the underpayment based
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year at
issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011