- 60 -
order “to intimidate the taxpayers from properly asserting their
positions with regard to their tax liability”, and that the
issues remaining for decision in this case “represent a legiti-
mate difference of opinion at worst and thus do not provide a
basis for the negligence penalty”.
Except for their conclusory statements on brief, petitioners
point to no facts and advance no arguments in support of their
contentions that (1) they had a reasonable basis for the posi-
tions that they took in their joint return for each of the years
at issue, (2) they did not intentionally disregard any Code
provisions in preparing each such return, (3) respondent deter-
mined to impose the accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a) in order to intimidate petitioners, and (4) the issues
remaining for decision in this case merely represent legitimate,
substantive differences of opinion between petitioners and
respondent.52
On the record before us, we find that, in the event the
computations under Rule 155 establish that there is an under-
52Although not altogether clear, petitioners may be claiming
reliance on the accountant who prepared their joint return for
each of the years at issue to support certain of their conten-
tions with respect to the accuracy-related penalty under sec.
6662(a). On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
failed to show (1) that any such reliance was reasonable and that
they acted in good faith, see sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax
Regs., and (2) that they provided correct information to that
accountant and that any item incorrectly omitted, claimed, or
reported in those joint returns was the result of that accoun-
tant’s error, see Ma-Tran Corp. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173
(1978).
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011