- 11 -
false and could not be sustained. Petitioners had reservations
at the times the returns were filed as to the accuracy of the
claimed itemized deductions. Petitioners knew that they were
entitled to deduct only amounts that they had actually paid.
They made no attempt to determine the qualifications of their
return preparer; they did not consult with tax professionals as
to the accuracy of Mr. Beltran's representations; and, moreover,
they 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 wisely saw that they had no case with respect to the
deficiencies and, instead, chose 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.
Petitioners, therefore, have interfered with the Court's function
to the detriment of other parties having cases with legitimate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011