- 12 -
to apply those proceeds in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the above-referenced revenue procedure, which is
precisely what occurred in this case.
That being so, petitioner’s claim that the proceeds of
the 1999 were misapplied by respondent must be rejected, which
in turn requires the rejection of his claim regarding the
consequences of the alleged misapplication.
Lastly, we turn to petitioner’s claim that respondent
improperly refused to grant his request for abatement of the
additions to tax. We construe petitioner’s position in this
regard to be that he should not be held liable for the additions
to tax. We have the jurisdiction in this case to determine, on
the basis of a de novo review, his liability for those additions
to tax for 1999. Downing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22 (2002).
As relevant here, in general, section 6651(a)(1) provides
for an addition to tax (commonly referred to as the late filing
penalty) that can amount to 25 percent of the tax (net amount),
required to be shown on the return if the return is filed more
than 4 months after the due date of the return. See sec.
6651(b).
Section 6651(a)(2), in general, provides for an addition to
tax (commonly referred to as the late payment penalty) that can
amount to 25 percent of the unpaid portion of the tax shown on a
return if the unpaid portion remains unpaid for more than 49
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007