- 13 -
established that Mr. Beauregard was a competent professional who
had sufficient expertise to justify reliance, petitioner has not
shown that he acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. See
sec. 6664(c)(1); Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner, supra at
98-99. Therefore, we find petitioner is liable for an accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662(a) of $3,419.
III. Conclusion
Petitioner was not engaged in the trade or business of
gambling in 2002. For all of the foregoing reasons, we hold
petitioner is liable for a deficiency in his 2002 Federal income
tax of $17,096 and an accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a) of $3,419.
In reaching our holdings, we have considered all arguments
made, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are
moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
8(...continued)
for that activity. Mr. Beauregard’s preparation of petitioner’s
returns for 1993-2001 does not establish that Mr. Beauregard had
sufficient expertise regarding the tax treatment of petitioner’s
gambling activity. In fact, despite the clear requirement of
sec. 165(d) that gambling losses may be claimed only to the
extent of gambling winnings, petitioner claimed gambling losses
that exceeded his gambling winnings by $50,650. In addition, the
gambling losses were claimed as costs of goods sold. At the
least, this calls into question Mr. Beauregard’s expertise.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011