- 24 -
deficiency suits). Consequently, we do not decide whether the
discharge in bankruptcy released petitioners from the liability
for the section 6651 addition to tax.18
Accuracy-Related Penalty
Respondent contends that petitioners’ 2000 Federal income
tax return reflected a substantial understatement, that
there was no reasonable cause for the understatement, and,
consequently, that petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related
penalty pursuant to section 6662(a).
Section 6662(a) imposes a 20-percent accuracy-related
penalty with respect to the portion of any underpayment of tax
attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax. An
“understatement” is the excess of the amount of tax required to
be shown on the return over the amount of tax that is actually
shown on the return. Sec. 6662(d)(2)(A). A “substantial
18Petitioners’ amended petition contended, inter alia, that
the bankruptcy estate paid the entire tax liability determined by
the bankruptcy court, that the bankruptcy court discharged
petitioner on Apr. 7, 2004, and, consequently, that respondent is
precluded from subsequently asserting any deficiency against
petitioners. Petitioners made no further contention at trial or
on brief that the bankruptcy court discharged the underlying 2000
tax liability at issue, and the parties have presented no
evidence with respect to such a discharge. As discussed above,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether a deficiency was
discharged in a prior bankruptcy proceeding. Neilson v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Graham v. Commissioner, 75
T.C. 389, 396 (1980). Consequently, we do not decide whether the
bankruptcy court discharged the underlying deficiency, addition
to tax, or accuracy-related penalty for petitioners’ 2000 tax
year.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011