- 8 -
Petitioners should have known that a substantial portion of the
itemized deductions at issue were false and could not be
sustained. The documentation they provided to Mr. Beltran in
substantiation of their claimed deductions was for amounts far
less than what was reported on the returns. 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 even examine the returns
once they were prepared. 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. At trial,
petitioners realized that they had no case with respect to the
deficiencies but continued to challenge the imposition of the
penalties under section 6662(a). Any reasonable and prudent
person, under the facts presented to the Court, should have known
that the 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 a disgruntled
litigant to proclaim the wrongdoing of another, their return
preparer, as a basis for relief from a penalty that was
determined by respondent on facts that clearly are not
sustainable. Golub v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-288.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011