- 6 -
The record, however, is devoid of any evidence that
petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement that limited
the addition to tax to the May 2000 payment. See sec. 7121;
Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 288 (1929);
Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 69, 70 (1972).
Finally, petitioner appears to argue that respondent was
somehow at fault because the notice of deficiency overstated the
tax liability and the addition to tax. This is a non sequitur.
The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) flows from the fact
that the return was not timely filed. The additional addition to
tax was computed on the deficiency that was ultimately agreed by
the parties. The fact that the notice of deficiency may have
asserted a higher deficiency had no bearing on the ultimate
determination of the addition to tax.
Decision will be entered
for respondent in the amounts
of $4,614 for the deficiency
and $1,134.50 for the addition
to tax under section
6651(a)(1).
4(...continued)
are assessments not subject to the deficiency procedures and thus
are not within the deficiency jurisdiction of this Court. See
secs. 6211, 6212, 6213; see also Estate of Forgey v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 142, 146 (2000); Meyer v. Commissioner,
supra at 560.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011