- 14 -
were required to make estimated tax payments for their 1995
through 2000 tax years.15 Petitioners do not dispute that they
made no estimated tax payments for these years. Further,
petitioners do not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to
the section 6654 addition to tax. Consequently, we sustain the
imposition of section 6654 additions to tax for petitioners’ 1995
through 2000 tax years.16
C. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty
Respondent has not asked that we impose a section 6673(a)(1)
penalty, even though petitioners’ filings in this case and their
submissions to respondent have included numerous frivolous
arguments. At trial, we warned petitioners that we might impose
a section 6673(a)(1) penalty if they continued to raise these
arguments. After trial, petitioners filed no brief and have not
otherwise continued to pursue frivolous arguments in this
proceeding. On the assumption that petitioners have heeded our
warning, we shall not impose a section 6673(a)(1) penalty. We
15 As previously noted, we consider petitioners to have
conceded or waived any issue as to whether respondent properly
allocated to Mrs. Rinn a share of Mr. Rinn’s dental practice
income, as community property income.
16 In the Rule 155 computation, we anticipate that the
parties will make appropriate adjustments to the sec. 6654
additions to tax to account for respondent’s concession that
Mr. and Mrs. Rinn should be treated as married persons filing
separate returns, with no double counting in Mr. Rinn’s taxable
income of community-property items included in the computation of
Mrs. Rinn’s taxable income.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011