- 19 -
* * *. And if it were a feasible judicial
undertaking, it still would not be a proper one,
equity in taxation being a political rather than a
jural concept.” * * * the solution must be with
Congress.
Speltz v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 176 (quoting Kenseth v.
Commissioner, 259 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001), affg. 114 T.C.
399 (2000)); Okin v. Commissioner, 808 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1987),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-199. Petitioner’s equity and public policy
arguments offer no relief from the tax consequences of the AMT,
as outlined above.
E. Section 6662
Section 6662(a) imposes a 20-percent accuracy-related
penalty on the portion of any underpayment attributable to a
substantial understatement of income tax. An understatement is
the amount of the tax required to be shown on the return for the
tax year less the amount of the tax actually shown on the return,
reduced by any rebates. Sec. 6662(d)(2). An understatement is
substantial if it exceeds the greater of: (1) 10 percent of the
tax required to be shown on the return; or (2) $5,000. Sec.
6662(d)(1). Section 7491(c) provides that Commissioner bears the
burden of production with respect to accuracy-related penalties.
See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001).
The amount of tax required to be shown on petitioner’s
return for the taxable year 2000 is $1,148,229. Petitioner
reported a tax liability of $972,864, understating his liability
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011