- 11 -
The Court considers petitioners' claim that they should not be
liable for the deficiencies and penalties to be frivolous and
groundless. Petitioners knew, or should have known, that a
substantial portion of the itemized deductions at issue was false
and could not be sustained. Petitioners knew that they could
deduct only amounts that they had actually paid. They made no
attempt to determine the qualifications of their return preparer
and, moreover, did not seek other professional advice to satisfy
the concerns they had over the returns prepared by Mr. Beltran.
Petitioners cited no legal authority to the Court that, under
similar facts, would exonerate them from the penalties under
section 6662(a).
The function of this Court is to provide a forum to decide
issues relating to liability for Federal taxes. Any reasonable
and prudent person, under the facts presented to the Court,
should have known that petitioners' claimed deductions could not
have been sustained, and petitioners knew that. This Court does
not and should not countenance the use of this Court as a vehicle
for disgruntled litigants to proclaim the wrongdoing of another,
his return preparer, as a basis for relief from penalties that
were determined by respondent on facts that clearly are not
sustainable. Golub v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-288.
Petitioners, therefore, have interfered with the Court's function
to the detriment of other parties having cases with legitimate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011