- 15 -
one not previously considered by the Court and the statutory
language was not entirely clear.”).
We agree with petitioner that he made a reasonable attempt
to comply with the Internal Revenue Code. Because this is a case
of first impression, there was no clear authority to guide
petitioner as to the complex and overlapping issues of tax and
bankruptcy law. We note that respondent has not referred us to
nor have we found any cases that have previously answered the
questions before us. Petitioner had an honest misunderstanding
of the law, and the position petitioner took was reasonably
debatable. Accordingly, in light of all the facts and
circumstances, we find petitioner acted reasonably and in good
faith with respect to the underpayment for the years at issue and
is not liable for the accuracy-related penalties under section
6662(a).
We have considered the other arguments of the parties and,
to the extent not discussed above, we conclude that the arguments
are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
for respondent with respect to
the deficiencies and for
petitioner with respect to the
penalty under section 6662(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: May 25, 2011