G.B. Data Systems, Inc. - Page 15




                                        - 15 -                                          
          provision as applied to the relevant facts.  See sec. 1.6662-                 
          4(d)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs.  There may be substantial authority             
          for more than one position with respect to the same item.  See                
          sec. 1.6662-4(d)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs.                                      
               The accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) does not              
          apply to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there             
          was reasonable cause for such portion and that the taxpayer acted             
          in good faith.  See sec. 6664(c)(1).  The determination of                    
          whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith              
          depends on the pertinent facts and circumstances, including the               
          taxpayer’s efforts to assess his or her proper tax liability, the             
          knowledge and experience of the taxpayer, and the reliance on the             
          advice of a professional, such as an accountant.  See sec.                    
          1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.  In the case of claimed reliance             
          on the accountant who prepared the taxpayer’s tax return, the                 
          taxpayer must establish that correct information was provided to              
          the accountant and that the item incorrectly claimed or reported              
          in the return was the result of the accountant’s error.  See Ma-              
          Tran Corp. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173 (1978).                          
               On the instant record, we reject petitioner’s contention                 
          that respondent’s determination under section 6662(a) is wrong                
          because “there is no underpayment of tax”.  We have held on that              
          record that petitioner is not entitled to deduct for the year at              
          issue the claimed royalty expense.  Consequently, petitioner has              






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011