RICHEY v. COMMISSIONER
Opinion
*52 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
DINAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner's Federal income taxes:
Additions to Tax
________________
Taxable
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6651(a)(2) 6654(a)
____ __________ __________ __________ _______
1995 *53 $ 5,881 $ 682 -- $ 148
1996 6,483 767 $ 409 165
[3] After concessions, the sole issue remaining for decision is whether petitioner is liable for the various additions to tax determined by respondent. 1
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations*54 of fact and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Verbank, New York, on the date the petition was filed in this case.
Petitioner suffered from prostate cancer and received medical treatments relating thereto starting in 1990. In 1995, petitioner contracted Lyme disease, which required two operations in 1998 and 1999. Petitioner currently suffers from lung cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy.
During 1995 and 1996, petitioner received numerous medical treatments, including psychiatric treatment, acupuncture, and drug therapy, related to his treatment for Lyme disease. However, during this time petitioner continued his employment as a manager of a hunting and fishing club and continued to operate a small kennel business related to his employment. Petitioner divorced and remarried during 1996. After his remarriage, petitioner's wife was involved with at least a portion of petitioner's finances, including making mortgage payments.
With assistance from his accountant, petitioner requested and received extensions of time to file both his 1995 and 1996 tax returns until October 15 of the years 1996 and 1997 for each respective return. However, *55 he did not file the returns until October 14 and 18, 1999, respectively. Prior to petitioner's filing the returns, respondent had already prepared a substitute return for each year on March 5, 1999, and issued the statutory notice of deficiency for each year on July 21, 1999.
We first address whether petitioner is liable for the
Paragraph (2) of
The amount of the addition to tax under paragraph (1) generally is reduced by the amount of the addition to tax under paragraph (2) with respect to each month in which both are otherwise applicable.
A taxpayer may avoid the additions to tax under one or both paragraphs if he establishes that the failure to file and/ or pay*57 is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
Petitioner filed returns for taxable years 1995 and 1996 in October 1999, after respondent had already prepared a substitute return and issued a notice of deficiency for each year. Petitioner testified that during the relevant time period, he was in and out of the hospital and "didn't know where I was at, what I was doing." However, at the same time petitioner was divorced and remarried, and was able to continue his employment as well as operate a small business. Petitioner also was able to request extensions of time to file his tax returns for both 1995 and 1996. Furthermore, petitioner's wife was available to assist petitioner with his finances for at least a portion of the time, and petitioner also had an accountant available who helped him request*58 the extensions of time to file. Consequently, while we are sympathetic of petitioner's situation, we find that he did not have reasonable cause for failing to file timely his 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax returns and to pay the tax shown on the 1996 substitute return. We sustain respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under
We next address whether petitioner is liable for the
Petitioner did not address this issue separately from the
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Petitioner concedes all other adjustments in the statutory notices of deficiency. The parties stipulated to certain items of income received by petitioner. With one exception, this income is reflected in the notices of deficiency. The exception is a State income tax refund of $ 131 which is includable in petitioner's gross income in 1995. In addition, respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to deductions not reflected in the notices -- to alimony deductions of $ 7,700 for 1995 and $ 18,800 for 1996, and to deductions (subject to the adjusted gross income limitation of sec. 213(a)) for medical expenses of $ 9,284 in 1995 and $ 11,460 in 1996.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.