- 14 - and her husband filed a joint return in 1994 as well as in 1996".12 Petitioner’s argument, based upon reasonable cause and lack of willful neglect, is without merit. “Except in very limited circumstances not applicable in this case, see sec. 6654(e)(3)(B), section 6654 provides no exception for reasonable cause or lack of willful neglect.” Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 323 (2003). However, because petitioner and Mr. Quarterman did file a joint return for 1994, petitioner may rely on the safe harbor provided by section 6654(d)(1)(B)(ii), which limits the amount of the “required annual payment” to “100 percent of the tax shown on” that return (i.e., petitioner’s return “for the preceding taxable year”).13 12 Petitioner apparently acknowledges that neither the safe harbor provided by sec. 6654(d)(1)(B)(i) (which provides, in part, that the “required annual payment” cannot exceed 90 percent of the tax shown on the return for the year in question) nor the exception provided by sec. 6654(e)(1) (the sec. 6654 addition to tax is not imposed if the tax shown on that return, reduced by allowable credits for withholding, is less than $500) is applicable in this case, presumably, on the ground that the 1995 Form 1040 does not constitute a valid return for purposes of either provision. We agree. See Mendes v. Commissioner, supra at 322-328 (return filed after issuance of a notice of deficiency is disregarded for purposes of computing the “required annual payment” under sec. 6654(d)(1)(B)(i)); see also Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. at 419-420. 13 Respondent’s computation of the sec. 6654 addition to tax is based upon a “required annual payment” equal to 90 percent of the $3,390 tax due (see sec. 6654(d)(1)(B)(i)), not upon “the tax shown on” the 1994 joint return.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011