- 8 -
deductions have been generally disallowed for payments made in
exchange for educational benefits, regardless of faith. See
Oppewal v. Commissioner, 468 F.2d 1000 (1st Cir. 1972), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1971-273; Winters v. Commissioner, supra; DeJong v.
Commissioner, supra. The taxpayers in those cases were similarly
situated with petitioners, and petitioners have not established
that they are similarly situated with the members of the Church
of Scientology who make payments for auditing. Petitioners’
reliance on Hernandez and the concept of consistent
interpretation and enforcement is rejected.
We now turn to the question of whether petitioners are
liable for the addition to tax for delinquency under section
6651(a)(1). Unless shown to be for reasonable cause and not due
to willful neglect, failure to file a return on the due date
generally results in an addition to tax of 5 percent for each
month during which such failure continues, but not exceeding 25
percent in the aggregate. See sec. 6651(a)(1).
Petitioners contend that petitioner Michael Sklar was simply
too busy to timely file their tax return for 1994. After
extensions, their tax return was due on October 15, 1995, but was
not filed until November 16, 1995. Accordingly, in the notice of
deficiency, respondent determined the delinquency addition to tax
based on 10 percent of the deficiency. On the tax return,
petitioner Michael Sklar is identified as a C.P.A., while
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011