- 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