- 3 -
Petitioner petitioned the Court on August 23, 2004, to
redetermine that determination.
On November 5, 2004, respondent filed with the Court an
answer to petitioner’s petition. The answer alleges that in lieu
of the determined amounts, petitioner is liable for a $3,029.60
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(h) for 1989 and a
$5,664.80 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for
1991. On April 18, 2006, respondent amended his answer to allege
as an alternative to the accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(h) for 1989 that petitioner is liable for a $1,514.80
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for negligence or
disregard of rules or regulations, see sec. 6662(b)(1), and/or
for substantial understatement of income tax, see sec.
6662(b)(2).
We decide whether petitioner is liable for the disputed
accuracy-related penalties. We hold that petitioner is liable
for a section 6662(h) accuracy-related penalty for 1989 and a
section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 1991, both in the
amounts alleged by respondent in his answer.4
4 At the outset, we note that three Courts of Appeals have
affirmed prior decisions of this Court holding that other
investors in Hoyt partnerships were liable for accuracy-related
penalties for negligence under sec. 6662(a) and (b)(1). See
Hansen v. Commissioner, 471 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C.
Memo. 2004-269; Mortensen v. Commissioner, 440 F.3d 375 (6th Cir.
2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-279; Van Scoten v. Commissioner,
439 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2004-275.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007