- 24 -
case, we conclude that petitioners are liable for such additions
to tax. Except as noted below,14 we also accept respondent’s
computation of the amounts of those additions as set forth in the
notices of deficiency.
III. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalties
Respondent asks that we impose a penalty against each
petitioner under section 6673(a)(1) in the amount of $25,000.
In pertinent part, section 6673(a)(1) provides:
SEC. 6673. SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS.
(a) Tax Court Proceedings.--
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for
delay, etc.–-Whenever it appears to the Tax
Court that--
(A) proceedings before it have been
instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer’s position in such
proceeding is frivolous or groundless,
or
* * * * * * *
the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the
taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in
excess of $25,000.
14 Respondent inexplicably based his 1992 sec. 6654
computation for Ms. Martin on tax of $8,764 rather than the
$8,740 amount of tax that appears elsewhere in the notice of
deficiency issued to her. In his 1995 sec. 6654 computation for
Ms. Martin, rather than reducing her 1995 tax by the amount of
her 1995 earned income credit, respondent improperly treated that
credit as a payment of estimated tax. See sec. 6654(f)(3) and
(g)(1). The correct amounts of those additions to tax shall be
the subject of Rule 155 computations.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011