- 16 -
bears the burden of proof with respect to the increase in that
accuracy-related penalty that respondent asserted in the amend-
ment to answer.10 Rule 142(a). However, our resolution of
whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty
does not depend on who has the burden of proof.
10If we were to sustain respondent’s position in the amend-
ment to answer that petitioner is liable for her taxable year
2001 for an accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a) in excess
of the amount of such penalty determined in the notice, it would
be necessary for the parties to determine under Rule 155 the
increased amount of such penalty attributable to petitioner’s
underpayment for that year. That is because respondent incor-
rectly calculated the increased amount of the accuracy-related
penalty under sec. 6662(a) asserted in the amendment to answer.
The increased deficiency in, and the increased accuracy-
related penalty under sec. 6662(a) on, petitioner’s tax for her
taxable year 2001 that respondent asserted in the amendment to
answer are attributable to gross distributions totaling $8,500
that petitioner concedes were made during 2001 from A.G. Edwards
and were not reported in the 2001 joint return. See supra note
7. Respondent calculated the increased amount of the accuracy-
related penalty under sec. 6662(a) to be $13,554. We believe
that respondent erred in making that calculation. It appears
that respondent calculated such increased amount as a percentage
of the increased amount of the deficiency that respondent as-
serted in the amendment to answer. However, the accuracy-related
penalty under sec. 6662(a) is equal to 20 percent of the portion
of the underpayment of tax to which that section applies. In the
instant case, the increased deficiency for petitioner’s taxable
year 2001 that respondent asserted in the amendment to answer and
that petitioner concedes is not equal to the underpayment for
that year to which respondent asserts sec. 6662 applies. In this
connection, we note that in the notice respondent determined that
the total tax withheld for taxable year 2001 was $4,825, and not
$2,956 as reported in the 2001 joint tax return. In addition,
petitioner reported in that return, and respondent did not adjust
in the notice, $700 of estimated tax payments for her taxable
year 2001.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011