Robert W. Tschetter - Page 29

                                       - 29 -                                         
               Despite the fact that petitioners have the burden of proof,            
          see supra note 3, petitioners have made no showing that they made           
          an attempt to comply with the tax rules and regulations with                
          regard to those deductions taken by Wolf Creek Farm for the years           
          at issue which have been disallowed.  Hence, with respect to                
          those deductions, petitioners have failed to show that Wolf Creek           
          Farm was not negligent.  Nor have petitioners showed that they              
          acted in good faith with respect to, or that there was reasonable           
          cause for, the position they took.                                          
               Further, petitioners do not claim that they relied on Mr.              
          Bleeker or any other professional as to the tax treatment of the            
          expenses for food and lodging.5  Petitioners simply assert that             
          the accuracy-related penalty does not apply because Wolf Creek              
          Farm properly claimed the deductions under section 162(a) and Mr.           
          Tschetter properly excluded the payments under section 119.  We             
          have found to the contrary.                                                 




               5Before the trial in these cases, respondent filed a motion            
          to disqualify Mr. Bleeker from his representation of petitioners.           
          Respondent’s motion was based, in part, on the premise that, if             
          petitioners contend that they reasonably relied on Mr. Bleeker’s            
          advice with respect to the proper tax treatment of the payments             
          at issue, then Mr. Bleeker would be required to testify as a                
          witness in the trial of these cases.  The Court held a telephone            
          conference call with Mr. Bleeker and counsel for respondent to              
          discuss respondent’s motion.  During that call, Mr. Bleeker                 
          informed the Court that petitioners did not intend to raise                 
          reasonable reliance on a tax professional as a defense to the               
          accuracy-related penalties.                                                 




Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011