William Lenihan - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         
          Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 7 n.11 (2006).  We therefore sustain              
          respondent’s determination of a section 6654(a) addition to tax,            
          adjusted only to take account of petitioner’s tax for 2000, as              
          finally determined.5                                                        
          III.  Conclusion                                                            
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             under Rule 155.                          






















               5  We note that, in connection with computing the “required            
          annual payment” defined by sec. 6654(d)(1)(B), we have held that            
          a return filed after the Commissioner has issued a deficiency               
          notice is not considered to be a “return” for purposes of sec.              
          6654(d)(1)(B).  See Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. at 324-325.            

Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31