§6

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

1982), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v.

2015-42), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

18, 1953) (transferring the Secretary’s closing agreement functions to the Commissioner), modified and superseded by Treas.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 492-493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

For starters, petitioner cites no authority for the prop- osition (and we know of none) that the IRS can unilaterally overrule a taxpayer’s designation of a remittance as a “deposit.” The statute specifically provides that a - 22 - [*22] taxpayer “may make a cash deposit,” sec.

485, 492-493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part Graev v.

485, 492-493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part Graev v.

125 (superseded by Rev.

395, 395 n.3 (1994), superseded by statute, Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub.

395, 395 n.3 (1994), superseded by statute, Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub.

395, 395 n.3 (1994), superseded by statute, Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub.

159, 164 (2001) (overruling a case that the Court had decided in the early stages ofits section 6320/6330jurisprudence).

6751(b)(1) is appropriately considered in this deficiency proceeding; Graev II is overruled in part.

97-37, supra, had been superseded by Rev.

6 superseded by Rev.

Those regulations were superseded by regulations finalized on July 2, 2008, T.D.

2006), superseded by statute, Tax Relief and Healthcare Act of 2006, Pub .

But they do point us to Revenue Procedure 2000-15, superseded by Revenue Procedure 2003-61 .

Additionally, I am concerned"that today the Court, on the' pretext that a 2006 amendment to section 6015(e) provides an occasion to reconsider our prior rulings,z essentially overrules our longstanding precedent that this Court reviews the Commissioner's denial of section 6015(f) relief for abuse of discretion .

8 CPII makes a half-hearted argument that 36 C.F.R. § 67.4 does not apply to section 170(h)(4)(C)(ii) given certain revisions in 2011.

Unlike the May-15 RAR, the February-17 RAR did not allow petitioners a prior year minimum tax credit that they had never claimed, resulting in a larger deficiency. 9 Sec. 6603(a) permits taxpayers to “make a cash deposit with the Secretary which may be used by the Secretary to pay any tax imposed under subtitle A or B * * * which has not been assessed at the time of the deposit.” For purposes of sec.

6662(a), (b)(2), (d)(1)(A). Petitioners reported tax liabilities of$17,111, $1,013, and $2,730 on their returns for 2013, 2014, and 2015, respec- tively. The notice ofdeficiency determined tax liabilities of$71,034, $20,411, and $13,953, respectively. Although respondent's concessions will reduce those liabilities slightly, it is obvious that petitioners' understatement ofincome tax for each year will be "substantial." See sec. 6662(d)(1). The section 6662 penalty does not apply to any portion o

at 226 n.8, the Court also stated that Rev. Proc. 90-60, sec. 6.03, 1990-2 C.B. 651, 655, does not apply because petitioner was never responsible for the cost ofhis meals.

at 226 n.8, the Court also stated that Rev. Proc. 90-60, sec. 6.03, 1990-2 C.B. 651, 655, does not apply because petitioner was never responsible for the cost ofhis meals.

Respondent's possession, and likely examination, ofGreen Gas' 2005 Form 1065 combined with a specific reason for its denial demonstrates that the FPAA is not invalid on its face and is distinguishable from the cases establishing such standards.

Nonrecognition ofgain or loss on contribution.-- * * ·* * * * * (b)(1)* * * To the extent that any ofthe partners gives up any part ofhis rightto be repaid his contributions (as distinguished from a share in partnership profits) in favor ofanother partner as compensation for services * * * section 721 does not apply. The value ofan interest in such partnership capital so transferred to a partner as compensation for services constitutes income to the partner under section 61.

1991), we observed that the benefits that section 6166 confers "are p ivileges granted to the taxpayer by Congress as a matter oflegislative grace," As a result, we concluded in-Estate of Bell that "the provisions ofsection 6166 which grant such privileges should be . given a strict and narrow construction" Id. Section 6166(g)(3)(A) provides that except as provided in section 6166(g)(3)(B), a provision that does not apply in this case, "ifany payment of principal or interest under this section i

CV 08-08467, Amended Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor ofthe U.S. at 3, (C.D. Cal. Dece ber 22, 2009). Providing taxpayers the ability to designate employmenttaxes in this manner would permissibly shift loss to the Government nd implicitly disregard I.R.C. § 6672. Babcock, No. CV 08-08467 t 12-13. Second, the IRS contends that Rev. Proc. 2002-26, supra, does not govern the application ofthe deposits because, it says, Rev.

For this reason alone, section 6015(g)(2) does not apply to relieve Mr.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). Once respondent meets this burden, the burden of proof remains with petitioner, including the burden of proving that the penalty is inappropriate because of reasonable cause. See Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 446-447. The facts of this case lead us to conclude that respondent has met his burden of production with respect to the accuracy-related penalty. Petitioner argues that the accuracy-related penalty does not apply because LLC meets the reasonable c

Pursuant to section 6663(c), Mrs. Norris is not liable for the fraud penalties. She is, however, jointly and severally liable for any deficiencies in 1998 resulting from the findings and conclusions reached herein with respect to Mr. Norris. See sec. 6013 (d) (3). With respect to 1996, because the fraud penalty does not apply to either petitioner, respondent may not rely on section 6501(c) to extend the limitations period.

6015; see also sec. 6013 (providing for filing of joint returns). Penland did not file a joint rgturn for 1998, 1999, or 2001. Thus section:6015 is inapplicable Ñere.

"* The $26, 995 distribution was received by George R. Ward, not Victoria J. Ward. He does not dispute that the distribution was from a qualified retirement 'The additional tax does not apply to distributions made to taxpayers who are more than 59-1/2 years old.

An exception to the 3-year rule is provided in section 6501(c) (1): (1) False Return.- In the rcase of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in.court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time. Respondent argues that the period of limitations in section 6501(a) does not apply because petitioner filed false returns with the intent to evade taxes for the years at issue.

on Taxation, General Explanation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, at 336 (J. Comm. Print 1981) ; emphasis added. ] Additionally, even if all of section 6621 is considered because of the cross-reference in section 6601, as petitioner argues, section 6621(d) does not apply a zero interest rate bu t rather provides that the net rate of interest shall be zero on equivalent underpayments and overpayments .

The Court o ppeals' opinion in Robinette , a case brought under section 6 30, is distinguishable from the current case brought under sect i n 6015 .6 Whereas section 6015 provides that we "determine" whether the taxpayer is entitled to relief, section 6330(d) provi es for judicial review of the Commissioner's determination by a l owing the taxpayer to "appeal such determination to the Tax Cou t" and vesting the Tax Court with "jurisdiction

2 We must distinguish the circumstances we consider from deficiency proceedings where we have authority to consider overpayments. See sec. 6512(b).

Unlike the taxpayers in Winn- Dixie Stores, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, petitioners have not paid in full the agreed deficiencies with interest. Accordingly, petitioners cannot invoke the Court's overpayment jurisdiction. Despite the Court's general lack of jurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer's liability for statutory interest in a deficiency proceeding the Court does have j.urisdiction under section 6621(c) to determine whether a taxpayer is liable for increased interest.

We need not decide which standard of review is applicable because respondent prevails under either standard .

We disagree with petitioner’s arguments and sustain 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C.

Moreover, we disagree with petitioner's contentions that, because oferrors by Accounting Resóürces, he could not have known ofthe existence ofthe second Form W-2 at the time he filed his 2009 Federal income tax return and that the earliest he could have known about the missing second Form W-2 was on December 19, 2011, at the

Respondent acknowledges that Kerr is applicable to this issue but argues that Kerr was incorrectly decided.

Our jurisdiction to review denials of interest abatement requests made during a section 6330 hearing is confined to cases in which we have section 6330(d) (1) jurisdiction, see Katz v.

Spenlinhauer (estate) is liable for an estate tax deficiency of Served 12/30/25 2 [*2] $3,984,344, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 of $996,086, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) and (b)(5) of $524,520 and (2) Robert J.

In accordance with the substance over form analysis we applied in Shockley III, petitioners, as distributees ofSCC, are determined to be transferees pursuant to section 6901.

In accordance with the substance over form analysis we applied in Shockley III, petitioners, as distributees ofSCC, are determined to be transferees pursuant to section 6901.

In accordance with the substance over form analysis we applied in Shockley III, petitioners, as distributees ofSCC, are determined to be transferees pursuant to section 6901.

In accordance with the substance over form analysis we applied in Shockley III, petitioners, as distributees ofSCC, are determined to be transferees pursuant to section 6901.

The debtor shall preserve his existing objection to the IRS unsecured general claims pursuant to § 6.1 ofthe Plan, and said claims shall be deemed disputed within the meaning of§ 3.2.2 ofthe Plan until resolution ofsuch disputed claims through either settlement or adjudication to a Final Order (as defined in § 1.18 ofthe Plan).

- [*2] for tax year 2009.¹ The issues for decision are whether: (1) MCM Investment Management, LLC (MCMIM), is entitled to a loss deduction claimed with respect to a partnership interest that MCMIM reported became worthless during 2009 and (2) MCMIM is liable for an accuracy-relatedpenalty for 2009 pursuant to section 6662(a).

SERVED Feb 26 2019 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARIS, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015(e)(1)¹ petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination that she is not entitled to relieffromjoint and several liabilityunder section 6015(f) for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 with respect to unpaid tax reported on thejoint Federal income tax returns she filed with her former spouse, Efigenio

Accordingly, we hold that interest expenses paid or incurred during the production period must be capitalized.

Accordingly, we hold that interest expenses paid or incurred during the production period must be capitalized.

We hold that the Commissioner does not bear the burden ofproduction with respect to penalties in a partnership- level proceeding.

We hold that the Commissioner does not bear the burden ofproduction with respect to penalties in a partnership- level proceeding.

Having considered all ofrespondent's arguments, we hold that respondent had the authority to consider Mr.

This case is a TEFRA partnership-level action based on a petition filed by the TMP pursuant to section 6226.¹ At issue is Palmolive's entitlement to a charitable contribution deduction for its donation ofa facade easement.

We hold that it did.

We must decide whether to sustain respondent's determinations as modified by respondent in the respective answers in these cases.7 We hold that we shall to the extent stated below.

We hold that petitioner is so liable; (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) for failure to timely file Forms 5330, Return ofExcise Taxes Related to Employee Benefit Plans, and failure to timely pay the excise taxes for calendar years 2002 through 2006.

We must decide whether to sustain respondent's determinations as modified by respondent in the respective answers in these cases.7 We hold that we shall to the extent stated below.

We must decide whether to sustain respondent's determinations as modified by respondent in the respective answers in these cases.7 We hold that we shall to the extent stated below.

The Notice In the "Explanation ofItems" portion ofthe notice, respondent first states: "The portion ofthe payments [contributions to the Advantage Plan] * * * used to pay the cost ofproviding life insurance * * * [for 2003] is includible in your income pursuant to Section 61 * * * and Treasury Regulation section 1.61- 2(d)(2)(ii)." In addition, respondent states: "The portion ofthe payments in excess ofthe amount * * * used to pay the cost ofproviding life insurance protection for you for * * *

We hold that the parties must calculate the value ofthe remainder interest for each trust using a distribution amount equal to the fixed percentage.

After concessions,2 the issues for decision are: (1) whether loss deductions claimed on petitioner's Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, should be disallowed for 2008 and 2009 under section 469 (we hold that they should); (2) whetherpetitioner is liable under section 6651(a)(1) for an addition to tax for late filing ofa tax return for 2008 (we hold that he is); and (3) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-relatedpenalties under section 6662(a) (we hold that he is not).

("Uniband"), pursuant to section 62121 on November 28, 2005, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") determined income tax deficiencies of$220,851 for 1996, $754,758 for 1997, and $308,498 for 1998.

We hold that it is not; and (3) whether adjustments to income or tax should be made with respect to petitioner's 2004 and 2006 Forms 1040, U.S.

Conclusion We hold that respondent correctly calculated petitioner's section 6662(a) penalty of$3,707.

52 GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6212(a),1 the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") determined deficiencies in tax for petitiöners, Lawrence and Lorna Graev, in the amounts of$237,481 for 2004 and $412,620 for 2005, resulting from the disallowance ofcharitable contribution deductions the Graevs claimed for those years.

"[I]t is clear from respondent's inability to express to this Court the postconfirmationrate finterest he used in assessing interest on his priority claim that the Appeals office did notproperly obtain verificationthat all applicable law and procedure had been f llowed pursuant to section 6330(c)(1)." Everett Assocs., Inc.

6654 2003 $14,595 $10,581 $3,649 , $377 2004 21,342 15,473 5,336 612 By answerto amendedpetition, respondent supported by specific averments his determination ofadditions to tax under section 6651(f) and, as an alternative to those additions to tax, claimed additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

The underpayment additipn rate is determined pursuant to section 6621 and is applied to the amount ofthe estimatedtax underpayment for the period ofunderpayment.

Although respondent did not move for the Court to impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673, this Court believes that petitioner's conduct deserves an appropriate sanction under section 6673.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: In these consolidated cases, petitioner seeks relief pursuant to section 6015 (f) from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 1998 and 2000.1 1Unless otherùise indicated, all section references are to (continued.

It follows, and we hold, that the net income arising from his psychiatric practice during the years in issue, including any amounts paid to Robucci P.C.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are not liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy- related penalties for the years in issue.

Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner timely filed a petition seeking r view of respondent's determination to proceed with the proposed levy.

Pursuant to section 6330 (d)", petitioner Beverly Bang seeks review of the determination of the IRS Officè of Appeals to sustaifi a proposed levy.

Wnuck and imposing against him a penalty of $1,000 pursuant to section 6673(a) (1)1 for maintaining frivolous positions.

- As best we under tand itÙ, petitionef's claim for relief is not directed toward the NFTL to which t he notice of determination refates but rather~ toward some possible future collection action that responcient might dpcide t t ake, ü h as making a levy upon his property pursuant to section 6331 or instituting a court action to enforce the li'en pürsuant to ection 7403.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: In these consolidated cases, petitioner seeks relief pursuant to section 6015 (f) from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 1998 and 2000.1 1Unless otherùise indicated, all section references are to (continued.

We hold that she is.

We hold that they did .

Agreement for, all Tax and other filing and reporting purposes without any disclo sure pursuant to Section 6662 or 6111 of the Code.

This case arises from a request for relief pursuant to section 6.015(f) with respect to petitioner's joint income tax liability for 2005 .

For 2004 respondent determined a deficiency of $15,551 i n petitioners' Federal income tax and an addition to tax o f $3,887 .75 pursuant to section 6651( .a)(1) .

- 3 - MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : These cases are before the Court pursuant to section 6213(a)' for redetermination of deficiencies in tax' and additions to tax for 2002, 2004, and 2005, which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined against petitioner Alexander Nicholas Lukovsky .

THORNTON, Judge : Respondent determined that pursuant to section 6901 petitioner has transferee liability of $44,681, plus interest as provided by law, arising from.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Pursuant to section 6015 petitioner seeks relief from joint and several liability for unpaid Federal income taxes for 2001 and 2002.1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

.Pursuant to section 6015(f), the Commissioner has prescribe d revenue procedure guidelines to help IRS employees deterjmine .whether a .

6621(d) Section 6404(e), as it applies to this case,26 provides, in pertinent part': SEC .

On the basis of 9 - the above we hold that under section 6 01(d) respondent has the burden of producing "reasonable and pr bative information" regarding the deficiency .

contributed to a charitable organization in 2004 ; and (6) whether the Court should require` petitioners to paya penalty pursuant to section 6673 .

We hold he is subject to tax; (2) whether Karen Lizalek is taxable on half o f petitioner's income as community property .

The examining agent testified that substitutes for returns had been filed pursuant to section 6020 (b) for 2000, 2001, and subsequent years for which .no returns had been filed by petitioners .

SERVED Feb 10 2009 J - 2 - --decide are : (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to deduct for taxable year 2002 contract labor expenses in excess of thos e allowed by respondent ; and (2) if not, whether, pursuant to section 6662(c), petitioners were negligent .

of an action for redetermination of deficiency, i .e ., in an action commenced pursuant to section 6213(a), this Court's authority to restrain assessment or collection is found in the penultimate sentence of section 6213(a) : The Tax Court shall,have no jurisdiction to enjoin any action or proceeding or order any refund under this subsection unless a timely petition for a redetermination of the .d

6015 .` On or about March 26, 2002, petitioner filed Form 8857,,,-, Request for Innocent Spouse .Relief (And Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), do which,she'requested relief from joint" and several liability for the 1979-81 liabilities pursuant to section 6015 .

Bates for their 2001 and 2002 taxable years, which reflected deficiencies and penalties pursuant to section 6662(b) for each taxable year.4 Petitioner filed a timely petition that contained frivolous and meritless tax-protester arguments .

Section 6320(c) requires that the administrative hearing be conducted pursuant to section 6330(c), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(B) thereof), and (e) .

Pursuant to section 6323(a), on July 20, 2006„ respondent filed a notice of Federal tax lien with respect to that liability in order to protect respondent's interest in petitioner's property against other creditors of petitioner .'° Section 6323(j)(1) provides in pertinent part : (1) In general .--The Secretary may with

Respondent counters that the period of limitations on assessment remained open pursuant to section 6501(c)(1) because petitioners' returns for 1985 and 198 6 were fraudulent, as determined in the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners for those years .

Accuracy-Related Penalty The last issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for the 2002 taxable year .

Therefore, the Court finds petitioners .may_ treat as substantiated the full Federal M&IE rate pursuant to section 6 .04 of the revenue procedures for the days petitioner incurred expenses while away from home during the off-peak-season voyages to Victoria with 6- to 7-hour layovers .

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint or several liability pursuant to section 6015(b), (c), or (f).

Consequently, the loss is properly disallowed under section 469(a).14 To reflect the foregoing, Decision with respect to the deficiencies will be entered for respondent; decision with respect to the accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) will be entered for petitioners.

Respondent also determined a penalty of $3,445 pursuant to section 6662(a).

Pursuant to section 6(a) of the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984, 98 Stat.

Conclusion In sum, we hold that petitioners transferred limited partnership interests to the GRAT’s trustees.

(Amax) as its common parent, which filed a consolidated Federal income tax return (consolidated return) for each of the years 1984, 1985, and 1986 that included petitioners?4 We hold that they were not 2 Unless otherwise indicated, our Opinion pertains to the years 1984, 1985, and 1986 (period at issue).

284, 289 (1972), wherein this Court noted: “Both parties agree that (continued...) - 24 - Accordingly, we hold that petitioner did not have UBTI during the taxable year in issue.9 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

2000-15, section 4.03, further provides “a partial list of positive and negative factors that will be taken into account” in determining the appropriate relief under section 6(...continued) used to make the payment for which he or she seeks a refund”.

§ 1.6662-4(f)(1). Disclosure on the face of a return may also be adequate if that manner of disclosure is permitted by an IRS revenue procedure applicable to the tax year in question. Id. subpara. (2). For 2009 and 2010 the latter form of disclosure was governed by Revenue Procedure 2010-15, 2010-7 I.R.B. 404, and Revenue Procedure 2011-13, 2011-3 I.R.B. 318, respectively. For 2009 and 2010 GWA reported long-term capital gains from termination of the Barrier Contracts on Schedules D, Capital Gai

However, neither party addresses the application of section 6201(d) here. Petitioner does not argue that the burden of producing reasonable and probative information relating to the value of the disputed shares on the date of transfer has shifted to respondent. Further, we note that under section 6201(d), petitioner has an obligation to fully cooperate with the Secretary. Petitioner’s failure to file a return for the 2014 tax year until 2021 (which was also after respondent prepared the SFR) is

United States Tax Court REVIEWED 165 T.C. No. 3 SILVER MOSS PROPERTIES, LLC, SILAS MINE INVESTMENTS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 10646-21. Filed August 21, 2025. ————— A partnership subject to the audit and litigation procedures of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, donated a conservation easement and claimed a charitable contribution deduction under I.R.C. § 170

As additional support for its conclusion that the section 6038(b) penalty is assessable, the D.C. Circuit reasoned that Congress adopted the IRS’s interpretation that it had authority to assess the section 6038(b)(1) penalty by reenacting section 6038 without significant amendment to the text. Farhy v. Commissioner, 100 F.4th at 236. Again, we note that where the text of a statute is unambiguous, our analysis ends. Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 120–21 (1994) (“There is an obvious trump to the

- 16 - [*16] We assume that respondent satisfied his initial burden ofproduction under section 7491(c) and focus on the only issue that petitioners raised with respect to the section 6662 penalty--whetherthey had reasonable cause and acted in good faith within the meaning ofsection 6664(c)(1). Petitioners argue they had reasonable cause because Mrs. Frias did not receive a physical copy ofthe Form 1099-R from Mutual ofAmerica and had only electronic access to it. Petitioners also argue that they

111, 115 (1933).6 Negligence Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1)(A) and (B) for 1987, an addition to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) for 1988, and an accuracy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) for 1989. Petitioner contends that he is not liable for the additions to tax or the accuracy-relatedpenalty because he reasonably relied in good faith on the Hoyt organization to properly prep

Beyer's taxable year 2005 that are (continued...) - 149 - [*149] Respondent bears the burden ofproduction with respect to the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and the accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a) that respondent determined in the notice. See sec. 7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001). To satisfy respondent's burden ofproduction, respondent must come forward with "sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose" those addi

- 62 - [*62] 1219(a), 120 Stat. at 1083. The PPA also eliminated the reasonable cause exception for gross valuation misstatements. Id. Petitioners valued the easement at $605,000. The amounts they reported on their 2006 and 2007 Federal income tax returns reflected this value. We conclude that the easement has a value of$104,000. Thus, petitioners' valuation of $605,000 is greater than 200% ofthe amount determined to be the correct value. Petitioners are liable for a gross valuation misstatement

6702(a) penalty with respect to petitioner's 2004 tax period, the (continued...) - 17 - [*17] Petitioner does not dispute that she submitted to respbndent a Form 1040X on April 21, 2008; however, she contends that the Form 10 OX does nöt affect the running ofthe section 6501(a) period oflimitations with respect to her 2004 tax liability. Respondent argues that the Commissioner timely ass ssed the section 6702(a) penalty. Respondent contends that the section 650 (a) period of limitations is appl

the Owens are liable for the section 6È62 (a) accuracy-related penalty'with respect to the underpayment relating to sale-proceeds of FFAEP.

the Owens are liable for the section 6È62 (a) accuracy-related penalty'with respect to the underpayment relating to sale-proceeds of FFAEP.

the Owens are liable for the section 6È62 (a) accuracy-related penalty'with respect to the underpayment relating to sale-proceeds of FFAEP.

Although Pitney Bowes' aggregate tax liability was reduced as a - 61 - result of this transaction, Congress intended to use the rehabilitation tax credit to draw private investments into public rehabilitations - Further, the regulations clearly contemplate a situation in which a partnership is used to transfer valuable tax attributes from an entity that cannot use them--corporation X--to individuals who can--taxpayers A and B. See sec. 1.701-2(d), Example (_6_) , Income Tax Regs. VII. Section 6

6662(a) and (b) (1) and s(2) . T1 e term "negligence" ir section 6662 (b) (1) includes any - failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the Code, and the term, "disregard" includes any careless, reckless,e or intenti nal disregard. Sec. 6662(c). Negligence has also been definec as thé failure to exercise due- care or the failure to do what a easonable person wou].d ,do under the circumstances. See Allen . Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1, 12 (1989), affd. 925 F.2d 3483 353 (9t Cir. 1991) ; Neely

Adler's return for the 2000 tax year .26 With respect to the 2002 through 2004 tax years, we have already found that Mr . Adler did not file returns for the preceding years (2001 through 2003) . Respondent has thus carried his burden of production unde r section 7491(c) with respect to the section 6654 addition for the .2001 through 2004 tax years . The section 6654 addition to tax is mandatory unless the taxpayer can place himself within one of the computational exceptions provided for in subse

- 50 - as reflected in the regulation, we hold that she is entitled to a deduction for work clothes.under section 162 in the amounts reflected on her worksheets, $797 for 2004.and $1,442 for 2005. 9. Section 6662(a) Penalties Section 6662 imposes an accuracy-related penalty equal to 20 percent of an underpayment of Federal income tax attributable to a taxpayer's substantial understatement of income tax or to a taxpayer's negligence or disregard of rules and regulations. Sec. 6662(a) and (b) (1)

payments as nonemployee compensation on Form 1099-MISC instead of reporting it as a distribution on Schedule Petitioners- maintain that -,it was reasonable for - 26 - them to not report the $80,000 on their 2005 Federal income ;..tax. return since -they "could not possibly report the receipt of th e payments., both correctly and also in a manner that was consistent with the reporting by Holland & Knight . We find this-argument; unpersuasive . Preliminarily, we note petitioners' argumen.tr is,,

Jurisdiction The section 6.700 penalty is governed by the procedural rules of section 6703,2 which generally removes section 6700 penalty assessments from the deficiency jurisdiction of this Court . However, section 6330(d)(1)3 provides this Court with jurisdiction to review an appeal from the Commissioner's determination to proceed with collection activity regardless of the type of underlying tax involved . We have held that our jurisdiction includes the right to review the Commissioner's lien

Respondent - 3 - also determined that petitioner was li ble for a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for failure to timely file tax returns relating to 2002 and 2003, a section 6 51(a)(2) addition to tax for failure to pay relating to 2002 an 2003, a section 6654(a) addition to tax for failure to pay est mated tax relating to 2002, a section 6662(a) accuracy-relat d penalty for underpayment of tax relating to 2003, and a section 72(t) additional tax for retirement plan distributions relating to

Under section 6 .05(1) of the revenue procedures, a taxpayer who computes the amount of his or her meals and incidental expenses under section 4 .03 of the revenue procedures is required to treat that amount as an expense for food and beverages . The expenses are thus subject to the limitation of section 274(n)(1) . - 30 - Under section 4 .03 of the rev

Addition o Tax Under Section 6651(a)(2 ) Section 6 51(a)(2) generally imposes an addition to tax for a failure to p y timely the amount of tax shown on a Federal income tax ret rn .

9 Petitioners' assertion that Congress used the broadest possible language to describe this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330(d) (1) is contradicted by the language of the section itself. Section 6330(d) (1) (B) provides that when the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability, the District Courts will instead have jurisdiction. See also sec. 301.6330-1(f)(1), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Therefore, section 6330(d) (1) does not expand this Court's (cid:16)042j

ase, none of the six factors in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447, weighing in favor of granting relief are 10 We note that Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296 (Aug. 11, 2003), superseded Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 6, 2003-32 I.R.B. at 299. The new revenue procedure, however, is effective for requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003. Id. Accordingly, it is inapplicable to the case at bar. - 22 - present:11 (1) Petitioner was not separated or divo

nefit in determining whether relief will be granted under sec. 6015(f). Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B. at 448. We note that Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296 (Aug. 11, 2003), superseded Rev. Proc. 2000-15, supra. Rev. Proc, 2003-61, sec. 6, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296. The new revenue procedure, however, is effective for requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003. Id. Accordingly, it is inapplicable to the case at bar. - 37 - attributable solely to Christopher. See Washington v.

Section 6.05 of the revenue procedures provides: Application of the 50-percent limitation on meals and expenses. When a per diem allowance is paid only for meals and incidental expenses * * * an amount equal to the lesser of the per diem allowance for each calendar day * * * or the Federal M&IE rate for the locality of 8 Under Rev. Proc. 94-77, sec

Furthermore, unlike in Beech Trucking Co., petitioners in this case, as noted above, attempted to substantiate the drivers’ travel expenses. We must consider whether this evidence meets the requirements of section 274(d). Additionally, petitioners here argue that they are entitled to a 100-percent deduction for the portion of the per diem allowance that they estimate is allocable to nonmeal expenses. I. Whether Petitioners May Deduct 80 Percent of the Per Diem Allowance Paid to Continental’s Dri

3) petitioner was not abused by Mr. Bartak, (4) petitioner knew or had reason to know of the item giving rise 9 We note that Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-32 I.R.B. 296 (Aug. 11, 2003), superseded Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 6, 2003-32 I.R.B. at 299. The new revenue procedure, however, is effective for requests for relief filed on or after Nov. 1, 2003. Id. Accordingly, it is inapplicable to the case at bar. - 30 - to the deficiency, (5) Mr. Bartak did not have an ob

Section 6.05 of the revenue procedures provides: Application of the 50-percent limitation on meals and expenses. When a per diem allowance is paid only for meals and incidental expenses * * * an amount equal to the lesser of the per diem allowance for each calendar day * * * or the Federal M&IE rate for the locality of 8 Under Rev. Proc. 94-77, sec

Section 6.05 of the revenue procedures provides: Application of the 50-percent limitation on meals and expenses. When a per diem allowance is paid only for meals and incidental expenses * * * an amount equal to the lesser of the per diem allowance for each calendar day * * * or the Federal M&IE rate for the locality of 8 Under Rev. Proc. 94-77, sec

Section 6.05 of the revenue procedures provides: Application of the 50-percent limitation on meals and expenses. When a per diem allowance is paid only for meals and incidental expenses * * * an amount equal to the lesser of the per diem allowance for each calendar day * * * or the Federal M&IE rate for the locality of 8 Under Rev. Proc. 94-77, sec

Section 6.05 of the revenue procedures provides: Application of the 50-percent limitation on meals and expenses. When a per diem allowance is paid only for meals and incidental expenses * * * an amount equal to the lesser of the per diem allowance for each calendar day * * * or the Federal M&IE rate for the locality of 8 Under Rev. Proc. 94-77, sec

r amounts attributable or allocable to the $14,065 adjustment. We conclude that Ms. Weiler is not relieved from liability for tax, penalties, interest, and other amounts attributable or allocable to the $14,065 adjustment because it was her income.6 Sec. 6 The Senate report discussing the allocation rule in sec. 6015(d)(3) (B) states: "In general, apportionment of items of income are expected to follow the source of the income. * * * Business * * * income * * * is allocated in the same proportio

amounts attributable or allocable to the $14,065 adjustment. We conclude that Ms. Weiler is not relieved from liability for tax, penalties, interest,. and other amounts attributable or allocable to the $14,065 adjustment because it was her income.6 Sec. 6 The Senate report discussing the allocation rule in sec. 6015(d)(3) (]B) states: "In general, apportionment of items of income are expected to follow the source of the income. * * * Business * * * income * * * is allocated in the same proporti

(2) Alternative minimum taxable income.--The term "alternative minimum taxable income" means the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year-- - 15 - (A) determined with the adjustments provided in section 56 and section 58, and (B) increased by the amount of the items of tax preference described in section 57. If a taxpayer is subject to the regular tax, such taxpayer shall be subject to the tax imposed by this section (and, if the regular tax is determined by reference to an amount ot

- 16 - (Otherwise, as discussed more fully infra, petitioner has not independently substantiated, and thus is entitled to no deduction for, any of the subject expenses in excess of those deemed to be substantiated under the Revenue Procedures.)13 Accordingly, under section 6.05 of the Revenue Procedures, the full amount of the per diem payments is treated as being for food and beverages and thus subject to the 50-percent limitation of section 274(n). D. Petitioner’s Contentions Petitioner argues

ing breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) for the applicable meaning of the term "gross income"6] minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)."7 Sec. 6 Whereas sec. 61(a) provides that the meaning of the term "gross income" as set forth therein does not apply "where otherwise provided in this subtitle", we are unaware of any provision in the subtitle that would make the sec. 61(a) definition

ing breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) for the applicable meaning of the term "gross income"s] minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)."7 Sec. 6 Whereas sec. 61(a) provides that the meaning of the term "gross income" as set forth therein does not apply "where otherwise provided in this subtitle", we are unaware of any provision in the subtitle that would make the sec. 61(a) definition

ing breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) for the applicable meaning of the term "gross income"6] minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)."7 Sec. 6 Whereas sec. 61(a) provides that the meaning of the term "gross income" as set forth therein does not apply "where otherwise provided in this subtitle", we are unaware of any provision in the subtitle that would make the sec. 61(a) definition

at 655 (“the Federal M&IE rate described in section 3.02 for the locality of travel will be applied in the same manner as applied under the Federal Travel Regulations, 41 C.F.R. Part 301-7 (1990), except as provided in sections 6.02 through 6.04.”).8 The travel regulations, in turn, provide a specific mechanism under which the applicable M&IE rates are reduced whenever the employer provides the traveler with meals at no charge. See, e.g., 41 C.F.R. sec. 301- 7.12(a)(2) (1994 & 1996). We conclude

In amendments to answers for 1982 through 984 and 1986 through 1988, respondent asserted the section 6 61 addition to tax with respect to any underpayments of tax ardsing from unreported income not included in the notices of deficiency.

rviving spouse support allowances, whether payable from income or corpus under local law, are included in a beneficiary's gross income as second tier distributions. Secs. 1.662(a)-2(e), 1.662(a)-3(b), Income Tax Regs. But see Ferguson et al., supra sec. 6.10 at 6:19, which distinguishes between statutory nonvested family support allowances, which may be awarded at the discretion of the presiding court, Estate of Cunha v. Commissioner, 279 F.2d 292, 297 (9th Cir. 1960), affg. 30 T.C. 812 (1958),

nal property. Statement 1, A.R.B. No. 43., ch. 4, reprinted in 4 A.I.C.P.A. Professional Standards, AC sec. 5121.03 (CCH 1979); Meigs et al., Accounting: The Basis for Business Decisions 405 (6th ed. 1984); see also Gertzman, Federal Tax Accounting, sec. 6.05[3][b] (2d ed. 1993). Petitioner argues that Mary Catherine should be allowed to use inventories because the different lots within the same development vary only slightly in value and because information regarding land prices has increased s

ecretary has yet to issue definitive guidance with respect to that issue, and the law remains in a state of uncertainty. See, e.g., Kalinka, 9A La. Civ. L. Treatise, Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships: A Guide to Business and Tax Planning, sec. 6.2, at 423 (3d ed. 2001); Chase, Self-Employment Tax and Choice of Entity, 34 Colo. Law. 109, 112 (Dec. 2005). - 30 - two new bank accounts, it was business as usual. Moreover, although he might have been justified in relying upon Mr. Carson's

We therefore hold that peti ioner is liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6 62(a) for the year 2000 with respect to the portion of the underpayment attributabl e to unreported income of $214 .16 3 .

ing the uniform laws. See, e.g., Stegall v. Oadra, 868 S.W.2d 290, 293 (Tex. 1993); Stauffer v. Henderson, supra at 863; Dickerson v. Brooks, 727 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex. App. 1987). The language of TPC 438(a) is identical to that of Unif. Probate Code sec. 6-103(a) (1969 Act), 8 U.L.A. (Part II) 464 (1998), the attendant comment of which reads in relevant part: This section reflects the assumption that a person who deposits funds in a multiple-party account normally does not intend to make an irre

Section 6 73(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer to pa to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenev r it appears that proceedings have been instituted or maintained y the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless. Although we do not impose a penalty

with the concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. In her review, Settlement Officer Alls determined that petitioners had the ability to pay the liability in full over the 3Petitioners did not check any of the boxes in sec. 6 of Form 656 to indicate the offer was based on doubt as to collectibility or otherwise. However, the statement attached to petitioners’ Form 656 claims they are unable to pay and mentions no exceptional circumstances, such as permanent disabil

Respondent has conceded that the section 6 At trial and on brief, petitioners have made no argument and presented no evidence concerning the sec.

) applies to this case, and we conclude that it does not (as this case predates the enactment of sec. 7491(a)). 5 In U.S. District Court, the parties are given an opportunity to present evidence with respect to sentencing. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines sec. 6A1.3 (2002). This evidentiary hearing is held before the sentencing of a convicted criminal. See United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir. 1978). - 13 - by the Blackbird Investments trading account, and from a Toronado Resources account. T

he airplane used to accomplish it hangs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. In the Rutan lawsuit, Mr. Rutan alleged that Ms. Yeager misappropriated memorabilia and funds from Voyager. 6 In 1997, sec. 2.22 of the Texas Family Code was renumbered sec. 6.202. Tex. Fam. Code sec. 6.202 (Vernon 1998). - 6 - Ms. Yeager indicated that she did not contest the annulment. In the Waiver, Ms. Yeager swore that when she married Mr. Rinehart the divorce action between her and Mr. Williams was not final a

involves the deposit of documents and/or money with a third party to be delivered on the occurrence of some condition.” Summit Fin. Holdings, Ltd. v. Contl. Lawyers Title Co., 41 P.3d 548, 551 (Cal. 2002) (quoting 3 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, sec. 6:1, pp. 2-3 (rev. 2000)). In short, all of the documents signed in 1993, and upon which petitioners predicate their alleged 1993 fait accompli, are actually documents essential to a closing of title when all conditions precedent thereto had bee

he airplane used to accomplish it hangs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. In the Rutan lawsuit, Mr. Rutan alleged that Ms. Yeager misappropriated memorabilia and funds from Voyager. 6 In 1997, sec. 2.22 of the Texas Family Code was renumbered sec. 6.202. Tex. Fam. Code sec. 6.202 (Vernon 1998). - 6 - Ms. Yeager indicated that she did not contest the annulment. In the Waiver, Ms. Yeager swore that when she married Mr. Rinehart the divorce action between her and Mr. Williams was not final a

he airplane used to accomplish it hangs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. In the Rutan lawsuit, Mr. Rutan alleged that Ms. Yeager misappropriated memorabilia and funds from Voyager. 6 In 1997, sec. 2.22 of the Texas Family Code was renumbered sec. 6.202. Tex. Fam. Code sec. 6.202 (Vernon 1998). - 6 - Ms. Yeager indicated that she did not contest the annulment. In the Waiver, Ms. Yeager swore that when she married Mr. Rinehart the divorce action between her and Mr. Williams was not final a

he airplane used to accomplish it hangs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. In the Rutan lawsuit, Mr. Rutan alleged that Ms. Yeager misappropriated memorabilia and funds from Voyager. 6 In 1997, sec. 2.22 of the Texas Family Code was renumbered sec. 6.202. Tex. Fam. Code sec. 6.202 (Vernon 1998). - 6 - Ms. Yeager indicated that she did not contest the annulment. In the Waiver, Ms. Yeager swore that when she married Mr. Rinehart the divorce action between her and Mr. Williams was not final a

at the Husband is required to personally fund such - 6 - money in lieu of corporate distributions, then, and in that event, he shall be entitled to be repaid by the Wife, without interest, from such distribution ultimately received by the Wife, at such time these distributions are received and exceed the guaranteed amounts of payments pursuant to § 6.6(B) due as of that time.

6.01 (Vernon 1990). Petitioners do not contend that any of these things occurred during the years in issue. Thus, we conclude that petitioner was a partner in DRD during the years in issue.4 4 Respondent offered the settlement agreement for petitioners’ suit against Trisch (see par. I-F, above) into evidence to show that petitioner and Trisch

Since we have concluded that petitioner was not a dealer in the years in issue, he did not have inventory within the meaning of section 6Corn Prods.

6 There is ample evidence to suggest that petitioners invested in the container leasing program primarily to reduce their Federal tax liability. Petitioner's testimony emphasized his desire to reduce their income tax liability through investments. In addition, his review of the promotional materials focused on the tax benefits which could be o

1992).9 Whatever choice of law rule we were to use, however, whether it be the most-significant-relationship test of 1 Restatement, Conflict of Laws 2d, section 6 (1971) or some other test, New Jersey law would apply.10 9Restatements are used as sources for determining Federal common law rules in other areas besides conflict of laws.

1992).9 Whatever choice of law rule we were to use, however, whether it be the most-significant-relationship test of 1 Restatement, Conflict of Laws 2d, section 6 (1971) or some other test, New Jersey law would apply.10 9Restatements are used as sources for determining Federal common law rules in other areas besides conflict of laws.

1115, 1116 (1966) (repealed 1981). The prior statute required the Veterans' Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) to recoup 75 percent of the separation pay when withholding disability compensation. 10 U.S.C. sec. 687(b)(6) (repealed 1981). Recoupment of only 75 percent of the separation pay was to - 5 - account

oint that settlement officers have broad discretion in deciding whether to accept an offer. A settlement officer can reject offers not in the government’s “best interest,” even if a taxpayer does not have the ability to pay. See Rev. Proc. 2003-71, § 6.03, 2003-2 C.B. 517, 519. Other IRM provisions suggest that when a business’s activity is criminal, its OIC can be rejected on public-policy grounds. See IRM 5.8.7.7.2(5) (June 23, 2022) (presenting circumstances where “[c]riminal activity is cont

First, we must determine the scope of the limited partner exception of section 6 1402(a)(13), which excludes from net earnings from self-employment the distributive share of “a limited partner, as such.” If we conclude that this limited partner exception requires an inquiry into a limited partner’s role in the partnership, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to make that inquiry in these partnership-level

The Second Restatement directs us to section 6--which lists general principles.

The Second Restatement directs us to section 6--which lists general principles.

Either Borrower defaults in the performance ofor compliance with any obligation, agreement or other provision contained herein (other than those referred to in subsections (a), (b) or (c) above), and, such default shall continue for a period of twenty (20) days following written notice to Borrowing Agent on behalfofsuch Borrower ofsuch default[.] * * * * * * * SECTION 6.02.

Either Borrower defaults in the performance ofor compliance with any obligation, agreement or other provision contained herein (other than those referred to in subsections (a), (b) or (c) above), and, such default shall continue for a period of twenty (20) days following written notice to Borrowing Agent on behalfofsuch Borrower ofsuch default[.] * * * * * * * SECTION 6.02.

at 3206 -10- (adding section 170(h)). Congress specified numerous requirements for a "quali- fled conservation contribution," including the requirements that the contribution be made "exclusively for conservation purposes" and that the "conservation pur- pose [be] protected in perpetuity." M (codified at section 170(h)(1)(C), (5)(

fthe Government. See IRM pt. 5.8.7.7.l(1) (Oct. 7, 2016). It specifies that "the Service may take into account public policy and tax administration concerns in determining whether an offer to compromise is acceptable". R (quoting Rev. Proc. 2003-71, sec. 6.03, 2003-2 C.B. at 519).¹6 It further states that "[r]ejections under this provision should not be routine and should be fully supported by the facts outlined in the rejection narrative." R The IRM gives a few nonexclusive examplesjustifying r

Either Borrower defaults in the performance ofor compliance with any obligation, agreement or other provision contained herein (other than those referred to in subsections (a), (b) or (c) above), and, such default shall continue for a period of twenty (20) days following written notice to Borrowing Agent on behalfofsuch Borrower ofsuch default[.] * * * * * * * SECTION 6.02.

6.05(3), 1968-1 C.B. 770, 779. - 96 - Second, even ifwe could confidently extract any factual underpinnings from the closing agreement, there is no evidence that the parties intended them to be binding for future years. Petitioner urges that "ordinary preclusion doctrines" prevent parties "from revisiting a [settlement] agreement's factual un

Either Borrower defaults in the performance ofor compliance with any obligation, agreement or other provision contained herein (other than those referred to in subsections (a), (b) or (c) above), and, such default shall continue for a period of twenty (20) days following written notice to Borrowing Agent on behalfofsuch Borrower ofsuch default[.] * * * * * * * SECTION 6.02.

Second, Congress amended section 6It is now well established that the Tax Court's findings offact (like those of the U.S.

Section 6 ofthe divorce order states that petitioner must transfer certain retirement accounts to his ex-wife, along with halfoftheir frequent flier miles. Section 10 of the divorce order states: Save as aforesaid * * * all ofthe claims of[petitioner's ex-wife] against [petitioner] and of[petitioner] against [petitioner's ex-wife] for any sort ofpr

yto require taxpayers to provide specific information in an application for certification.¹° The Secretary exercised this authority when he and the IRSjointly issued Notice 2010-45. See Notice 2010-45, sec. 3, 2010-23 I.R.B. at 735. Notice 2010-45, sec. 6.02, 2010-23 I.R.B. at 737, states that applications for certification must be made on Form 8942. On that form, taxpayers are required to specify the taxable years beginning in 2009 and/or 2010 for which they are seeking project certification an

27) consent to a change in accounting method for the years at issue. A taxpayer is required to file a Form 3115 or application in lieu ofa Form 3115 to obtain the Commissioner's automatic consent to a change in accounting method. Rev. Proc. 2011-14, sec. 6.02(1)(a), 2011-4 I.R.B. 330, 346. Likewise, a taxpayer is required to file a Form 3115 to obtain the Commissioner's nonautomatic consent to a change in accounting method. Rev. Proc. 97-27, secs. 5.01(1)(a), 6.01, 1997-1 C.B. at 684, 685. Neith

6 We never did figure out where the $62,000 came from. During trial the Commissioner conceded that "the only issue that remains as to the $62,000 is whether or not the $29,000 * * * should be allowed or not." We treat this as a concession ofthe remaining $33,000 ofthe asserted increase in capital gain. - 14 - [*14] 1012(a). Taxpayers can adju

In advancing this contention, he relies on section 6 ofthe settlement agreement, captioned "Governing Law, Juris- diction, and Dispute Resolution." It provides that "[t]he rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the laws ofthe State ofNew York, without regard to prin- ciples ofconflict oflaws." Section 6 g

6This Court "follow[s] a Court ofAppeals decision which is squarely in point where appeal from our decision lies to that Court ofAppeals and to that court alone." Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). When he filed his petition, petitioner lived in California, a State within the Ninth Circuit, s

6This Court "follow[s] a Court ofAppeals decision which is squarely in point where appeal from our decision lies to that Court ofAppeals and to that court alone." Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). When he filed his petition, petitioner lived in California, a State within the Ninth Circuit, s

Respondent disallowed certain itemized and business expense deductions and determined that petitioners were liable for a $29,901 income tax deficiency and a $7,475 section 6f>51(a)(1) addition to tax.

As set forth above, section 6.2 ofthe plan document requires a good-faith valuation to determine the fair market value ofthe securities.

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

9(...continued) to revoke its use ofthe recurring item exception. - 11 - 1. Bermuda's Minimum Solvency Margin Requirement Pursuant to the Bermuda Insurance Act, an insurance company must maintain a minimum solvency margin. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 6. More specifically, a class 1 insurer's general business assets must exceed its general business liabilities by the greatest of: $120,000; 10% ofthe insurer's loss and loss expense provisions plus other insurance reserves; or 20% ofthe first $6

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

301.6231(a)(6)-1T(a), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6790 (Mar. 5, 1987).7 However, ifan adjustmentto an affected item requires a partner-level factual determination, the IRS must follow deficiency procedures. Sec. 6230(a)(2)(A)(i); sec. 6Except in limited circumstances, refund suits for adjustments attributable to partnership items are not permitted. Sec. 7422(h). And even then, any prior partnership item determination is conclusive. Sec. 6230(c)(4); see also New Millennium Tra

9(...continued) to revoke its use ofthe recurring item exception. - 11 - 1. Bermuda's Minimum Solvency Margin Requirement Pursuant to the Bermuda Insurance Act, an insurance company must maintain a minimum solvency margin. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 6. More specifically, a class 1 insurer's general business assets must exceed its general business liabilities by the greatest of: $120,000; 10% ofthe insurer's loss and loss expense provisions plus other insurance reserves; or 20% ofthe first $6

respondent's prior motion for partial summaryjudgment, see supra note 2, petitioner stated that the mortgage would "be fully amortized by * * * the owner ofthe TOY[S] Interest". 1 Joseph Rasch & Robert F. Dolan, N.Y. Law & Practice ofReal Property, sec. 6:27 (2d ed.) ("Payment ofprincipal of mortgage") states in pertinentpart: A life tenant is under no obligation to pay the principal ofa mortgage encumbering the property; this must be paid by the remainderman. Ifthe life tenant does pay it, he

9(...continued) to revoke its use ofthe recurring item exception. - 11 - 1. Bermuda's Minimum Solvency Margin Requirement Pursuant to the Bermuda Insurance Act, an insurance company must maintain a minimum solvency margin. See Insurance Act, 1978, sec. 6. More specifically, a class 1 insurer's general business assets must exceed its general business liabilities by the greatest of: $120,000; 10% ofthe insurer's loss and loss expense provisions plus other insurance reserves; or 20% ofthe first $6

First, pointing to section 6b ofthe German income tax code, Dr.

(Unless we say otherwise, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.) - 4 - [*4] but, rather than processing it, sent the return to the agent investigating Trainor. Trainor's criminal investigation lingered for a,fe

First, pointing to section 6b ofthe German income tax code, Dr.

First, pointing to section 6b ofthe German income tax code, Dr.

0-1(a), (b)(1), (g), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Shaw v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-106; Burke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-127. The first condition is that the taxpayermust participate in an Appeals conference before filing a petition.7 Sec. 6There are certain limited exceptions that apply to relieve taxpayers ofthe requirement that they pursue administrative remedies. See sec. 301.7430-1(f) and (g), Examples (4) and (5.), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Shaw v. Commissioner, T.C.

6 (U.K!) (available at http://www.legis ation.gov.uk/ukp a/2005/5/section/6) (last visited Feb. 1, 2012) ('Profits ofa trade * * * [of] a on-.UK resident are:chargeable tb tax under this Chapter only if they arise--(a) from a trade carried on wholly in the United Kingd m, or (b) in he case ofa trade carried on partly in the United Kingdom and

al rule permit individuals to deduct investment interest and qualified residence interest. Sec. 163(h)(2). For noncorporate taxpayers, investment interest is deductible only to the extent ofthe taxpayer's net investment income for the taxable year.' Sec. 6InVestment interest disallowed under this limitation is treated as investment interest paid or accrued by the taxpayer in the succeedingtaxable year. Sec. (continued...) - 15 - [*15] 163(d)(1). Investment interest generally means "any interest

6 01 provides that "[e]very person liable for any tax imposed by this . title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records * * * and comply with such rules and r gulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe." Sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs., provides that "any person subject to tax * * * shall keep such permanentboo

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Under MUFTA Section 6 Additionally, MUFTA section 6(a) provides that a transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to the creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or - 39 - incurred the obligation without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for th

Section 6673 (a) (1) Penalty Section 6Ë73 (a) (1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty not ta exceed $25 00 if the taxpayer took frivolous or groundless positions in the proceeding or instituted the proceeding primarily for delay.

- 12t - Therefore, section 6 01(e) (1) (A).

As previously 1: discussed, the lack of evidence regarding the items giving rise to the deficiency constrained us; to find that petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving entitlement to section 6.015(b) Y - 9 - relief.

Section 6.201(d) provides that in any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return and has fully cooperated, the Commissioner shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning the deficiency in addition to the information return . S

Subsection (a) of section 6'662 imposes an accuracy!-related penalty of 20 percent of any .underpayment that is attributable to causes specified in'subsection (b) .

the: 19.54 Code .,introduced section 7806-(b) (inference , legislative construction not to be - drawn .from.'location ore,grouping of provisions of Code) in its presentform carrying„forwar d similar,.language from section 6 of the introductory "enacting clause of the statute.

York Estate Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL), "A disposition of real property to a husband and wife creates in them a tenancy by the entirety, unless expressly declared to be a joint tenancy or a 5 - tenancy in common ." N .Y. Est . Powers & Trusts Law sec. 6-2 .2(b) (McKinney 2002) (as in effect in 1977) . In a tenancy by the entirety, each spouse has , total. possession of the property, and at one spouse's death the survivor takes the entire property because the survivor remains seized of the whol

his solely owned S corporation and was required to .file returns for the-years in issue, that his failures to file Iwere fraudulent, that the additions to tax were appropriate, . and that his frivolous arguments justified a penalty of $10,000 under section 6.673 . Decisions were entered in each case on November ;'21, 2006, and were not appealed . The income taxes, additions to "tax, and penalties were assessed for 1999 through 2002 . On October 23, 2007, the IRS issued a Final Notice of Intent t

Section 6.664 , provides a defense if a taxpayer establishes that -there was ` reasonable cause for the underpayment .and that he acted=in good faith with respect to that .portion . Sec . 6664(.c)(1) ; sec . 1 .6664-4(a), Income Tax Regs . ; . see also Higbee v~. Commissioner-, 116 T .C . 438, 44&(2001) . The, determination°of whether`a taxpayer ac

Section 6-664(c)(1) provides that the accuracy-related penalty shall not be imposed with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for that portion and the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to that portion . Further : The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in go

6 15(e)(1)(A)(i)(I) . In this case, even though petitioner never received a notice of determination we have jurisdiction under section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) because petitioner filed his petition more than 6 months after applying to the IRS or section 6015 relief . II . Burden of Proof The spouse requesting relief normally bears the burden of pr

However, the election under,, section 6,013(b)(1) may not be made after the expiration of 3 years from the last dat e prescribed, by law for filing the return for such taxable yea r (determined without regard to any extension of time, granted to either spouse) .

The section 6654(a) addition to tax is determined by applying the underpayment rate established under section 6 621 to the amount of the underpayment' for the period of the underpayment .5 The '"[A]mount of the underpayment" means the excess of the required installment over the amount, if any, of the installmen t (continued .

Section 6.404(e)(1) provides that the Secretary may abate the assessment of interest on any deficiency in tax attributable in whole or in part to any unreasonable error or delay by an officer or employee of the IRS in performing a ministerial or managerial act . A ministerial act means a procedural or mechanical act that does not involve the exerci

of an abatement of interest under section 6-404-(h),,.a- Id .

estate activity: The accuracy-related.'penalty under section 6..662,(a.) will not be imposed with .:respect to,.any'portion_,.of}the underpayment as to which the taxpayer acted with reasonable,cause_and,in good faith .

t to any further or additional hearing . H . Conf . Rept . 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1998- 3 C .B . 747, 1020 . Any further hearing that a taxpayer has is a supplement to the initial hearing, and the two hearings together constitute the hearing under section 6 30(d ) . Drake v . . - 8 - Commissioner, supra (citing Parker v. Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-226) . It follows that this hearing, which may actually consist of several meetings or other written or oral communications, yields only one d

In section 6 of petitioners' Form 433-A, petitioners pro- vided the responses indicated to the following questions : 17a . Are there any garnishments against your wages? 0 No q Yes 17b . Are there any judgments against you? q No ® Yes SEE ATTACHED If yes, who is Date creditor Amount of debt the creditor? NY obtained $ 56,867 .00 STATE DEPT TAX judgmen

vers the following information to the Com- pany : (i) the transferee's taxpayer identification number; and (ii) the transferee's initial tax basis in the Transferred Interest ; and 6 .1.1 .6 . the transferor complies with the provisions set forth in Section 6 .1 .4 . 6 .1.2 . If the Conditions of Transfer are satisfied, then a Member or Interest Holder may Trans- fer all or any portion of that Person's Membership Interest . The Transfer of a Membership Interest pursu- ant to this Section 6 .1. s

der subtitle A or B .") . Sectii n 6404 ( e) authorizes the Commissioner to abate interest assessmen s that are attributable to errors or delays by the IRS . Petitioners do not argue that the is terest is excessive or was erroneously assessed under section 6 04(a) . Instead, petitioners argue for abatement of inter st because of the delay in the distribution of funds from the ba: kruptcy . While in certain circumstances interest may be ab ted because of an unreasonable delay of the Commissioner,

Section 6663 Ponalty The next issue is whether petitioner is liable for fraud under section 6I ,663(a) for the years at issue .

also Goldstein v. Ipswich Hosiery Co., 122 S.E.2d 339, 345 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961) (“It is elemental that contracting parties may agree to give retroactive effect, between themselves, to their contracts as they may see fit.”); 2 Williston on Contracts, sec. 6:60 (4th ed. 1991) (“it seems clear that, where the parties themselves agree that a contract between them should be given effect as of a specified date, absent the intervention of third party rights, there is no sound reason why that agreement

On November 2004, res ondent mailed to petitioner at petitioner's current address a section 6320 lien notice relating to the above NFTL, i n which res receipt f om petitioner of a section 6.320 Appeals Office hearing request .

The Maker shall have the right of offset against amounts due and the right to defer or suspend payments due under this Note based on any breach by the Holder of the covenants contained in Section 6 of the Redemption Agreement.

etitioner in which he determined petitioner owed Federal employment taxes as follows: Kind of Tax Tax Period and Code Ended Section Amount of Tax 2000 FUTA, sec. $2, 630.35 3301 3/31-12/31/00 FICA & FITW¹ 11,343.96 secs.. 3101, 3111, 3402 2001 FUTA, sec. 6, 306.01 3301 3/31-12/31/01 FICA & FITW 12,890.36 secs. 3101, 3111, 3402 Total 33,170.68 ¹ Federal income tax withholding. Respondent enclosed, with the 30-day letter, IRS Publication 5, Your Appeal Rights And How to Prepare a. Protest If You D

Stock or (v) any failure of Liberty Bell I, LLC (or a successor thereof) or its manager to make distributions contemplated by Section 15 of the Limited Liability Company Agreement of Liberty Bell I, LLC dated as of July 28, 1998 * * * * * * * * * * Section 6. Drag-Along Rights. (a) The Drag-Along Right. After June 30, 2003, if Acquirors (together with any of their successors, transferees and assigns, the “Selling Shareholders”) propose to sell all of the shares of [MergerSub] Common - 55 - Stoc

77-287, section 6.02, 1977-2 C.B. 319, 321-322, for the proposition that “the longer the buyer of the shares must wait to liquidate the shares, the greater the discount.” Mr. Frazier believed that the studies he considered showed that the following factors were relevant to a marketability discount: Company revenues, company profitability, company value, th

ted for the purpose of communicating with the attorney. This is not relevant to the point of whether confidentiality can reasonably be expected in the communications that contain the information. Rice, Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States, sec. 6:2, at 9-11 (2d ed. 1999). See, e.g., Natta v. Zletz, 418 F.2d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 1969) (“It is also immaterial that some of them [letters] refer to technical or public information.”); Cuno, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 121 F.R.D. 198, 202 (E.D.N.Y. 198

ing breadth that "for purposes of this subtitle, the term 'taxable income' means gross income [see sec. 61(a) for the applicable meaning of the term "gross income"6] minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)."7 Sec. 6 Whereas sec. 61(a) provides that the meaning of the term "gross income" as set forth therein doe's not apply "where otherwise provided in this subtitle", we are unaware of any provision in the subtitle that would make the sec. 61(a) definition

BFI agrees to assist BI in pursuing the Claim as set forth in Section 6.4.8 of the Purchase Agreement.

The agreement also stated: Section 6.10 Investments.

In particular, as respondent acknowledges, n order for the 6-year period of limitations under section 6 01(e) to apply, respondent must show that the taxpayer has omitted an amount of gross income which is more than 25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in the tax return.

in his experience it was customary practice in the timber industry to apply an after- tax analysis.17 In his rebuttal report, Maloy includes as an appendix portions of a treatise (Bullard, Basic Concepts in Forest Valuation and Investment Analysis, sec. 6.2 (1998)) that describe the use of an after-tax analysis for forestry investments, whereby one converts all costs and revenues to an after-tax basis and calculates all present values using an after- tax discount rate. Accordingly, authorities r

6-01-02 (1995) defining the terms "banking association" and "state banking association" to include "limited liability companies, partnerships, firms, or associations whose business in whole or in part consists of the taking of money on deposit". Although our interpretation of the sec. 956 deposits exception narrows its scope, we conclude that

Houle, Jr., Pawtucket's director of public safety, wrote a letter "to whom it may concern" in which he stated: In accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Pawtucket and Local 1261, International Association of Fire Fighters, Article XV, Section 3 and Section 6 and also the Charter of the City of Pawtucket, specifically, the revised ordinances, Chapter 23, Section 23-2.2 Paragraph B.

As a fallback provision, section 6.12 of the amended plan required that, if at the end of 5 years from the - 14 - consummation date CDC's stock had not been sold, CDC would (1) transfer any rigs that it continued to own to Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., as agent for the bank group, in satisfaction of the bank group's secured claims, (2) liquidate its other remaining assets,

At the same time, an additional provision, section 6.5, "minimum gain chargeback", was inserted into each of the IHCL, PLH, and PGL partnership agreements.

6; see Snellgrove v. Fogazzi, 616 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). c. Inadequate Consideration Under Florida law, a conveyance made without adequate consideration by a debtor is a badge of fraud. Cleveland Trust Co. v. Foster, supra at 114; Money v. Powell, 139 So. 2d 702, 704 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962). Petitioners contend that the

Section 6 In some cases, taxpayers must establish the correct amount of a corporation's earnings and profits in order to show that the distribution received was a return of a capital contribution rather than a dividend. However, this is not such a case. - 20 - 165(a) allows for a deduction for any loss sustained during the taxable year and not com

6 (1988), requires that futures contracts be sold on a board of trade which has been designated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a "contract market". "Futures contracts" and "future delivery" are defined so as to exclude "any sale of any cash commodity for - 7 - whether a forward contract or a futures contract was contemp