- 7 -
taxpayer’s method of accounting. Petitioners contend that “It
logically follows that a lump-sum payment to procure a lease in a
time-sensitive context should be deductible as well.” We need not
decide this point because we are not convinced that petitioner
prepaid rent in 1992 to obtain a lease in 1994 and 1995.
We conclude that petitioners may not deduct the rent
petitioner prepaid in 1992.
B. Whether, Under the Mitigation Rules, Petitioners May Deduct
Rental Expense for 1993 and 1994 Which Petitioner Prepaid in
1992
Petitioners contend that, if they may not deduct rent they
prepaid in 1992, then they may deduct it in 1993 and 1994 under
sections 1.1314(a)-1 through 1.1314(c)-1, Income Tax Regs. (which
relate to the mitigation provisions, sections 1311 through 1314).
We disagree. We lack jurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer’s
tax liability in years for which the Commissioner has not issued a
notice of deficiency. See secs. 6213(a) and 6214(a) and (b). The
only notice of deficiency petitioned in this case is for 1992.
Thus, we lack jurisdiction to decide petitioners’ tax liability for
1993 and 1994.
C. Whether Petitioners Are Liable for the Addition to Tax Under
Section 6651(a) for Failure To Timely File a Return
Respondent determined and contends that petitioners are liable
for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely
file their income tax return for 1992. A taxpayer may be liable
for an addition to tax of up to 25 percent for failure to timely
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011