- 29 -
3. Whether Petitioners Are Not Liable for the Accuracy-
Related Penalty for 1995-97 Because They Used Record-
Keeping Practices That Respondent Approved in a Prior
Audit
Petitioners contend that they are not liable for the
accuracy-related penalty for negligence for 1995-97 because they
used reasonable record-keeping practices that the Commissioner
approved in a prior audit. We disagree.
Petitioners cite Boulez v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 209, 215
(1981), affd. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and Fitzpatrick v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-548, to support their contention
that the Court should consider the fact that the Commissioner had
sent a no-change letter in weighing the appropriateness of the
penalty. In Boulez and Fitzpatrick, we denied the taxpayer’s
request to equitably estop the Commissioner. A prior no-change
letter for the years in issue did not estop the Commissioner from
issuing a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer in Fitzpatrick.
Fitzpatrick v. Commissioner, supra. Those cases do not support
petitioners’ position.
Mrs. King testified that King’s Appliances was audited in
1969. She did not describe the issues considered in that audit
or offer a no-change letter in evidence. She gave us no basis on
which to consider that audit in deciding whether the accuracy-
related penalty applies for 1995-97.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011