- 7 - “correction” of the 1999 ending inventory had been made on filings as late as July 2004. At the time of trial, Wilkerson admitted that the amount shown on the tax return as purchases during 1999 was an error, which she attributed to “an input error into the computer program that I use for tax preparation by a part-time person I had working for me.” Wilkerson testified: Q [Petitioners’ counsel] As far as the cost of goods sold is concerned that’s on the return versus the one that’s on the workpapers or the accounting records, which one is accurate? A [Wilkerson] The ones that–-in the accounting records. Q So that would mean that the return was overstated by $50,000? A Yes. Petitioners have not shown any error in respondent’s calculation of cost of goods sold for 1999. In their briefs, petitioners disregard their concession at trial of the negligence penalty, and they argue that the penalty amount should be reduced. Even if petitioners were not bound by their stipulation, which they are, they have not identified, much less established, any adjustments not due to negligence that would justify reduction of the penalty. The record in these cases is thus devoid of any credible evidence from petitioners that would substantiate any of their claims. The parties’ briefs devote substantial space to quarreling with what the revenue agent did or did not do–-mattersPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011