- 2 -
deficiency under any of the following three theories: (1) The
statutory notice of deficiency is invalid; (2) respondent is
contractually estopped from determining a deficiency for the 2001
tax year; and (3) the manufacturer of the software used by
petitioners to prepare their return was responsible for the
deficiency, and petitioners should be allowed to interplead and
make the software manufacturer a responsible party in this
proceeding.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners resided in Pomfret, Maryland, at the time that
their petition was filed in this proceeding. Petitioners timely
filed a joint Federal income tax return for 2001 that they
prepared using Intuit TurboTax software (Turbotax). The Turbotax
software programs are designed so that a taxpayer’s responses to
questions, ostensibly, are automatically placed onto approved
forms, and the tax due or overpaid is automatically computed.
The promotional material on the software packaging states that it
“double-checks for overlooked deductions, missing information and
entries that could trigger an audit * * * [and] [e]ven gives you
personalized advice as you go.” By this methodology, petitioners
provided answers to Turbotax’s questions and were able to produce
and print a copy of their return, which they signed and submitted
to respondent for filing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011