- 36 -
sufficient books and records to accurately reflect his income and
expenses. Moreover, petitioner should certainly have been aware
of the controlling factors in determining a taxpayer’s tax home
and of the stringent requirements surrounding a home office
deduction under section 280A. If petitioner had not been
familiar with these rules and requirements, his many years of
experience in preparing returns should have led him to research
the law on these matters before filing returns claiming such
deductions.
The Court finds that petitioners made an insufficient effort
to determine their proper tax liabilities in filing their returns
for 1994, 1995, and 1996. Moreover, in light of petitioner’s
experience, knowledge, and education, the Court finds that
petitioners’ claiming deductions, which were disallowed by
respondent and subsequently conceded by petitioners or sustained
by this Court in favor of respondent, did not constitute a
reasonable and honest misunderstanding of fact or law.
On this record, the Court holds that petitioners negligently
or intentionally disregarded rules or regulations with regard to
the adjustments in the notice of deficiency for 1994, 1995, and
1996 that were either conceded by petitioners or sustained by
this Court in favor of respondent. Accordingly, the imposition
of the accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1994,
1995, and 1996 is sustained.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011