Chad W. and Aliza Kold-Warren - Page 4
related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of 20 percent
of the deficiency, or $1,182.60.
Petitioners’ alternative computation asks the Court to
decide that the amount of the deficiency is $2,225. Petitioners’
computation does not discuss the accuracy-related penalty under
section 6662(a). Nevertheless, we note that the Court expressly
sustained respondent’s determination of the accuracy-related
penalty in its bench opinion, and petitioners’ liability for the
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) is not in issue in
these proceedings under Rule 155. The decision in this case will
include petitioners’ liability for an accuracy-related penalty in
the amount of 20 percent of the deficiency.
A summary of the deficiency computations of both parties is
appended hereto as Appendix. There are six differences between
petitioners’ computation and respondent’s revised computation.
The attached summary highlights those six differences. We
address each of them below.
Item No. 1: Petitioners’ computation claims a capital loss
of $1,848, whereas respondent’s revised computation allows a
capital loss of $1,719, a difference of $129. Paragraph 13 of
the Stipulation of Facts states that petitioners incurred a
capital loss of $1,719 during 2002. Accordingly, the capital
loss allowed in respondent’s revised computation is correct.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: March 27, 2008