- 7 -
6211(a), and, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over such
additions to tax in this case. The additions to tax that
respondent determined under section 6651(f) were computed by
reference to the taxes shown by petitioner on his delinquently
filed returns; thus, those additions are not attributable to a
deficiency as defined in section 6211. See Estate of Forgey v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 142 (2000); Meyer v. Commissioner, supra
at 559-563; Estate of DiRezza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 19, 25-32
(1982); Estate of Scarangella v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 184
(1973); Newby’s Plastering, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-320. Further, the additions to tax that respondent
determined under section 6654 are not subject to the deficiency
procedures because petitioner actually filed tax returns, albeit
delinquently, for the years in question. See Meyer v.
Commissioner, supra at 561-563.
Finally, we repeat what we said nearly 30 years ago in a
case similar to the present one:
We recognize the difficult position in which
petitioners are placed by not being able to come to the
Tax Court to test the validity of the respondent’s
action in asserting the penalty. Nevertheless, that is
the law and we must take it as we find it.
Estate of Scarangella v. Commissioner, supra at 186-187.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011