- 12 -
6662(b)(2).11
We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of
petitioners that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be
without merit and/or irrelevant.12
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of petitioners,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
11In light of our finding that petitioners are liable for
the year at issue for the accuracy-related penalty because of a
substantial understatement of tax under sec. 6662(b)(2), we shall
not address respondent’s contention that petitioners are liable
for the year at issue because of negligence or disregard of rules
or regulations under sec. 6662(b)(1).
12In this connection, we note that, in support of their
position in this case, petitioners rely on Vandeyacht v. Commis-
sioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-148. In that case, we held, inter alia,
that the taxpayers there involved were not liable for additions
to tax under sec. 6653(a)(1) of the Code in effect for 1983,
1984, and 1985. We find Vandeyacht to be distinguishable from
the instant case and petitioners’ reliance on that case to be
misplaced. The taxpayers in Vandeyacht hired a bookkeeper and an
accountant to ensure the accuracy of their tax returns. We held
that the taxpayers in Vandeyacht exercised reasonable care and
prudence where certain mistakes made by their bookkeeper were not
easily discernable from the spreadsheets that that bookkeeper had
provided to their accountant or from the tax returns that that
accountant had prepared. In the instant case, petitioners have
failed to establish that they exercised reasonable care and
prudence to ensure the accuracy of the 1999 joint return.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011