Bert LaRue and Michelle Nolen - Page 9




                                        - 8 -                                         

          nevertheless, failed to ascertain from tax professionals whether            
          their returns were correctly prepared.  These facts demonstrate             
          to the Court that petitioners made no reasonable effort to                  
          ascertain their correct tax liabilities for the years at issue.             
          Stubblefield v. Commissioner, supra.  On this record, the Court             
          sustains respondent on the section 6662(a) accuracy-related                 
          penalties for the 3 years at issue.                                         
               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 and challenged               
          only the penalties under section 6662(a), the Court considers               
          petitioners' claim that they should not be liable for the                   
          penalties to be frivolous and groundless.  Petitioners knew that            
          a substantial portion of the itemized deductions at issue was               
          false and could not be sustained.  Other circumstances noted                
          above need not be repeated here.                                            
               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 chose to continue to challenge the imposition of           
          the penalties under section 6662(a).  Any reasonable and prudent            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011