Indeck Energy Services, Inc., and Subsidiaries - Page 55




                                       - 55 -                                         
          in 1994.  On brief, respondent now concedes the penalty with                
          respect to the Polskys but argues that Indeck is liable for an              
          accuracy-related penalty due to an underpayment attributable to a           
          substantial understatement of tax or to negligence or disregard             
          of rules or regulations.                                                    
               Section 6662 imposes a penalty equal to 20 percent of the              
          portion of an underpayment of tax that is attributable to                   
          negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, or a substantial           
          understatement of income tax.  See sec. 6662(a) and (b)(1) and              
          (2).                                                                        
               In the case of a corporation, a substantial understatement             
          of income tax exists if the amount of the understatement exceeds            
          the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the            
          return, or $10,000.  Sec. 6662(d)(1).  An “understatement” is               
          defined as the excess of tax required to be shown on the return             
          over the amount of tax imposed which is shown on the return, less           
          any rebate.  Sec. 6662(d)(2)(A).  The amount of the                         
          understatement is reduced, however, to the extent it is                     
          attributable to the tax treatment of any item for which there is            
          or was substantial authority for the treatment, and an authority            
          for this purpose includes a court case.  Sec. 1.6662-                       
          4(d)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs.                                              
               Indeck marshaled a number of cases to support its treatment            
          of the disputed portion of the settlement payment.  While we have           






Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011