- 12 -
have been if he had simply filed his tax returns properly in the
first place. Even if we were permitted to entertain arguments
based solely in equity,6 we would not sanction petitioner’s
egregious violation of the law by permitting him to avoid the
consequences of his own choices; there are too many taxpayers who
unintentionally run afoul of the Internal Revenue Code and yet
are required to pay interest and applicable penalties to even
consider relieving petitioner of liability on equitable grounds.
Further, it was a condition of petitioner’s probation that he
cooperate with the IRS in the collection of all outstanding
taxes, interest, and penalties; we are unclear on how petitioner
is able to say he has satisfied that condition when he proposes
that the penalties associated with his conduct be overlooked.
Petitioner is liable for the 75-percent civil fraud penalty
as determined in the notice of deficiency, and no argument--
legal or equitable--persuades us otherwise.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
6 “The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and
lacks general equitable powers.” Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S.
3, 7 (1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: November 10, 2007