Steven L. and Laura J. Chambers - Page 15




                                       - 14 -                                         

          Court sustains respondent on the section 6662(a) accuracy-related           
          penalties for the years in question.                                        
               Section 6673(a) authorizes the Court to require a taxpayer             
          to pay to the United States a penalty not exceeding $25,000 when,           
          in the Court's judgment, proceedings have been instituted or                
          maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or where the                 
          taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.           
          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 accuracy of their returns.  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           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011