- 7 -
know, all the relevant facts upon which, had he been a qualified
professional, he could have accurately advised petitioners on the
amount of their allowable deductions. Mr. Beltran never sought
the correct amount of petitioners' charitable contributions and
employee business expenses, and the documentary evidence
petitioners offered, by their admission, did not come close to
the amounts claimed on the returns. The Court is further
satisfied that petitioners knew they were required under the law
to substantiate deductions claimed on their returns and,
moreover, given the fact that they had only submitted minimal
records to Mr. Beltran, they had every reason to examine the
returns prepared by Mr. Beltran for accuracy, which they failed
to do. Petitioners, therefore, made no effort to assess their
tax liability correctly. On this record, the 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.
Although petitioners conceded the deficiencies, the Court
considers petitioners' claim that they should not be liable for
the section 6662(a) penalties to be frivolous and groundless.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011