Snyder v. Comm'r
Opinion
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in, and an accuracy-related penalty under
In an amendment to answer, respondent asserted (1) an increase in (a) the deficiency in, and (b) the accuracy-related penalty under
The only issue remaining for decision is whether petitioner is liable for her*94 taxable year 2001 for the accuracy-related penalty under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Many of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioner resided in Ellicott City, Maryland, at the time she filed the petition.
Petitioner, who attended three years of college where she majored in education, and E. Bruce Snyder (decedent) were married for about 38 years when he died after a long illness in May 2001. During their marriage, decedent retained Robert Hopkins (Mr. Hopkins) with A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (A.G. Edwards) as their financial advisor.
With Mr. Hopkins's assistance, in December 1994, decedent and petitioner each opened an individual retirement account (IRA) with A.G. Edwards. Petitioner was the primary beneficiary of decedent's IRA, and decedent was the primary beneficiary of petitioner's IRA. The four children of petitioner and decedent were the contingent beneficiaries of both decedent's IRA and petitioner's IRA.
At a time or times not disclosed by the record, decedent purchased from Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life) two annuity contracts, viz., the MFS Regatta Gold Fixed Annuity (contract no. 76-7600-474212) and the*95 MFS Regatta Gold Fixed/Variable Annuity (contract no. 76-7600-574550), that were in effect when he died on May 14, 2001. 2 (We shall refer to (1) decedent's MFS Regatta Gold Fixed Annuity as decedent's fixed annuity contract, (2) decedent's MFS Regatta Gold Fixed/Variable Annuity as decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract, and (3) both such contracts collectively as decedent's annuity contracts.) Mr. Hopkins of A.G. Edwards was the plan administrator for each of decedent's annuity contracts.
In May or June 2001, Sun Life was notified that decedent had died. Upon receiving notice of decedent's death, Sun Life sent to the plan administrator for each of decedent's annuity contracts (1) a letter dated June 18, 2001, with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract (Sun Life's June 18, 2001 letter) and (2) a letter dated June 19, 2001, with*96 respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract (Sun Life's June 19, 2001 letter). The respective bodies of those letters, which were virtually identical, stated in pertinent part:
After review of this contract, it has been determined that Anne
Snyder is entitled to the death benefit options. It is important
that she [Anne Snyder] consult a tax or legal advisor before
making a decision. Please have her choose one of the following
options:
(1) Immediate lump Minimum Death Benefit.
The Minimum Death Benefit is calculated by Sun Life and
will pay the greatest of the following:
o Contributions accruing at a rate of 5% annually, minus
withdrawals also accruing at a rate of 5% annually. This
accrual will continue until the first day of the month
following the 80th birthday of the annuitant or until the
contributions or withdrawals have doubled as a result of
the accumulation.
o 100% of the accumulated value on the date of death
notification*97 and elected option paperwork is received by
Sun Life in good order.
o Account value on the most recent 7th contract
anniversary, plus any contributions, minus any
withdrawals since that 7th year anniversary.
o Cash Surrender Value. This includes any applicable
surrender penalties and Market Value adjustment
(MVA -- applies to fixed series only)
Note: If the Lump Sum option is chosen, we ask that the
beneficiary provide the tax withholding information. Sun
Life can withhold between 10%-50% for taxes only upon
request.
(2) Defer the lump sum payment.
The lump sum payment may be taken anytime within five years
of the date of death. A new beneficiary can be named for
the deferral period.
(3) Annuitize the contract.
This option may be chosen within one year of the
annuitant's date of death. If this option is chosen, it is
irrevocable. For additional*98 information regarding
annuitization, please see the enclosed annuitization kit.
(4) Re-register the contract.
In order to proceed, we ask that Anne Snyder send a letter
of instruction that includes the following information:
o chosen Death Benefit Option (listed above) Note: If
the Re-registration option is chosen please have her
[Anne Snyder] include her date of birth and new
beneficiary designation.
o an original signature
o mailing address
o Social Security number
o Signature Guarantee -- needed only if the
re-registration option is chosen or if the payout
is $ 250,000.00 or greater.
* * * * * * *
Please forward the following documents in addition to the letter of instruction:
o certified copy of the annuitant's [decedent's] death
certificate.
On July 9, 2001, petitioner signed and dated Form W-4P, Withholding Certificate for Pension*99 or Annuity Payments (Form W-4P), for her taxable year 2001 with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract (petitioner's 2001 Form W-4P for decedent's fixed annuity contract). In that form, petitioner directed that no tax was to be withheld from any distribution with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract. The instructions for petitioner's 2001 Form W-4P for decedent's fixed annuity contract stated in pertinent part:
Withholding From Pensions and Annuities
Generally, Federal income tax withholding applies to the taxable
part of payments made from pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus,
annuity, and certain deferred compensation plans; from
individual retirement arrangements (IRAs); and from commercial
annuities. The method and rate of withholding depends on the
kind of payment you receive. Also, because your tax situation
may change from year to year, you may want to refigure your
withholding each year. You can change the amount to be withheld
by using lines 2 and 3 of Form W-4P.
Choosing not to have income-tax withheld. You * * * can
also choose not to have income tax*100 withheld from your payments
by using line 1 of Form W-4P. * * *
* * * * * * *
Caution: There are penalties for not paying enough tax during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments.
* * * * * * *
Nonperiodic payments-10% withholding. Your payer must
withhold a flat 10% from nonperiodic payments (but see Eligible
rollover distribution-20% withholding below) unless you choose
not to have income tax withheld. Distributions from an IRA that
are payable on demand are treated as nonperiodic payments. You
can choose not to have income tax withheld from a nonperiodic
payment by submitting Form W-4P (containing your correct TIN) to
your payer and checking the box on line 1.
* * * * * * *
Eligible rollover distribution-20% withholding.
Distributions you receive from qualified pension or annuity
plans (e.g., 401(k) pension plans) or tax-sheltered annuities
that are eligible to be rolled over tax*101 free to an IRA or
qualified plan are subject to a flat 20% withholding. The 20%
withholding is required and you cannot choose not to have income
tax withheld for eligible rollover distributions. See Pub. 505
for more details. However, the payer will not withhold income
tax if the entire distribution is transferred by the plan
administrator in a direct rollover to a traditional IRA,
qualified pension plan, or tax-sheltered annuity. * * *
On July 9, 2001, petitioner signed and dated Form W-4P for her taxable year 2001 with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract (petitioner's Form W-4P for fixed/variable annuity contract). In that form, petitioner directed that no tax was to be withheld from any distribution with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract. The instructions for petitioner's 2001 Form W-4P for decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract were identical to the instructions for petitioner's 2001 Form W-4P for decedent's fixed annuity contract.
On July 17, 2001, Sun Life received an undated letter from petitioner with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract (petitioner's July 17, 2001 letter*102 with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract). In that letter, petitioner elected what she referred to as a "lump sum death benefit payment" under decedent's fixed annuity contract and requested that Sun Life "not withhold any taxes from this distribution." Petitioner enclosed with petitioner's July 17, 2001 letter with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract, inter alia, petitioner's 2001 Form W-4P for decedent's fixed annuity contract, including the instructions to such form, a form entitled "ANNUITIZATION DATA FORM" on which no information was contained and which had been crossed out, and a form entitled "Direct Deposit Authorization" in which petitioner directed Sun Life to deposit directly into her checking account at Bank of America (petitioner's Bank of America checking account) 3 any payments that Sun Life made to her under decedent's fixed annuity contract.
*103 On July 17, 2001, Sun Life received an undated letter from petitioner with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract (petitioner's July 17, 2001 letter with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract). In that letter, petitioner elected what she referred to as a "lump sum death benefit payment" under decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract and requested that Sun Life "not withhold any taxes from this distribution." Petitioner enclosed with petitioner's July 17, 2001 letter with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract, inter alia, petitioner's 2001 Form W-4P for decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract, including instructions to such form, and a form entitled "Direct Deposit Authorization" in which petitioner directed Sun Life to deposit directly into her Bank of America checking account any payments that Sun Life made to her under decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract.
On November 16, 2001, the plan administrator of decedent's fixed annuity contract and decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract sent to Sun Life a letter (A.G. Edwards November 16, 2001 letter) with respect to both of those contracts, which Sun Life received on November 19, 2001. Included*104 with that letter were two death certificates for decedent. A.G. Edwards November 16, 2001 letter stated in pertinent part:
As per our conversation today, please find the enclosed original
death certificates to liquidate the above policies.
Also, Mrs. Snyders bank account number is 007071707352, you have
the rest of the information on file.
I am under the assumption that these will be liquidated on
November 19, 2001, and all any monies due per your calculation
will be deposited into the above account on Tuesday, November
20th, 2001. If this is NOT a correct assumption, please advise
Robert Hopkins or myself immediately at (800) 688-9334.
On November 26, 2001, petitioner received into her Bank of America checking account a payment of $ 25,940.28 from Sun Life with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract.
On November 26, 2001, petitioner received into her Bank of America checking account a payment of $ 170,429.52 from Sun Life with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract.
Sun Life reported to respondent for petitioner's taxable year 2001 the gross distributions of $ 25,940.28 and*105 $ 170,429.52 that it made to petitioner during that year with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract and decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract, respectively. In this connection, Sun Life prepared separate Forms 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit- Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc. (Sun Life Form 1099- R), for 2001 that showed Sun Life as the payer and petitioner as the recipient of such respective gross distributions. The address for petitioner shown in each such form was the same as the address shown in (1) the tax return that petitioner filed for her taxable year 2001 and (2) the petition that she filed with the Court. One Sun Life Form 1099-R showed a "Gross Distribution" of $ 25,940.28 and a "Taxable Amount" of $ 25,940.28, which was the amount of the distribution that Sun Life paid to petitioner in 2001 with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract. The other Sun Life Form 1099-R showed a "Gross Distribution" of $ 170,429.52 and a "Taxable Amount" of $ 170,429.52, which was the amount of the distribution that Sun Life paid to petitioner in 2001 with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract. The "Distribution*106 Code(s)" shown in each Sun Life Form 1099-R was "4", and the box entitled "IRA/SEP/SIMPLE" was checked. 4
During 2001, petitioner received interest of $ 400 and other income of $ 1,365 from American General Life Insurance Company (American General).
During 2001, A.G. Edwards made the following gross distributions totaling $ 8,500 from decedent's IRA, with respect to which an election had been made to withhold tax of 10 percent, by issuing the following checks to decedent:
Date of A.G. Normal Tax Gross
Edwards Check Distribution Withheld Distribution
______________ ____________ ________ _____________
February 2, 2001 $ 1,125 $ 125 $ 1,250
February 9, 2001 *107 405 45 450
March 1, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
April 3, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
May 1, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
June 12, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
______ ____ ______
Subtotals $ 7,650 $ 850 $ 8,500
Total $ 8,500
The above-described checks issued by A.G. Edwards were deposited into petitioner's Bank of America checking account. 5
On June 12, 2001, petitioner sent to A.G. Edwards a death certificate for decedent and a preprinted*108 form prepared by A.G. Edwards entitled "A.G. Edwards Self-Directed IRA Request Form" (A.G. Edwards IRA request form). In that form, petitioner directed A.G. Edwards to make a total distribution rollover of decedent's IRA into petitioner's IRA because of decedent's death.
In July 2001, petitioner requested A.G. Edwards to make gross distributions to her from petitioner's IRA of $ 1,700 a month. Pursuant to that request, during 2001, A.G. Edwards made the following gross distributions totaling $ 10,200 from petitioner's IRA, with respect to which an election had been made to withhold tax of 10 percent, by issuing the following checks to petitioner:
Date of A.G. Normal Tax Gross
Edwards Check Distribution Withheld Distribution
_____________ ____________ ________ ____________
July 10, 2001 $ 1,530 $ 170 $ 1,700
August 6, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
August 31, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
September 28, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
November 16, 2001 *109 1,530 170 1,700
December 3, 2001 1,530 170 1,700
______ ______ _______
Subtotals $ 9,180 $ 1,020 $ 10,200
Total $ 10,200
The above-described checks issued by A.G. Edwards were endorsed by petitioner and deposited into petitioner's Bank of America checking account.
A.G. Edwards prepared and issued to decedent and petitioner separate Forms 1099-R (A.G. Edwards Form 1099-R) for 2001 with respect to the gross distributions of $ 8,500 and $ 10,200 that A.G. Edwards made during that year from decedent's IRA and petitioner's IRA, respectively. The address for decedent and for petitioner shown in the respective A.G. Edwards Forms 1099-R issued to them was the same as the address shown in (1) the tax return that petitioner filed for her taxable year 2001 and (2) the petition that she filed with the Court. A.G. Edwards Form 1099-R issued to decedent showed A.G. Edwards as the payer and decedent as the recipient of a "Gross Distribution" of*110 $ 8,500 and a "Taxable Amount" of $ 8,500, which was the total amount of the gross distributions that A.G. Edwards made to decedent during 2001 from decedent's IRA. A.G. Edwards Form 1099-R issued to petitioner showed A.G. Edwards as the payer and petitioner as the recipient of a "Gross Distribution" of $ 10,200 and a "Taxable Amount" of $ 10,200, which was the total amount of the gross distributions that A.G. Edwards made to petitioner during 2001 from petitioner's IRA. The "Distribution Code(s)" shown in the respective A.G. Edwards Forms 1099-R issued to decedent and petitioner was "7", and the box entitled "IRA/SEP" was checked. 6
Petitioner and decedent timely filed a joint Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for their taxable year 2001 (2001 joint return).*111 In that return, petitioner reported wages of $ 18,672 paid to petitioner by Chateau Builders of Maryland Inc., taxable interest of $ 62, ordinary dividends of $ 21, total IRA distributions of $ 11,111 paid to petitioner by Allfirst Bank, and Social Security benefits of $ 20,802, of which petitioner reported $ 4,134 was taxable. In the 2001 joint return, petitioner reported total income of $ 34,000, total tax of $ 3,158, tax withheld of $ 2,956, estimated tax payments of $ 700, and an overpayment of $ 498.
In the 2001 joint return, petitioner did not report interest income of $ 400 and other income of $ 1,365 paid during 2001 by American General. Nor did petitioner report in the 2001 joint return the gross distributions of $ 25,940.28 and $ 170,429.52 paid during 2001 by Sun Life with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract and decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract, respectively. In addition, petitioner did not report in the 2001 joint return the gross distributions of $ 8,500 and $ 10,200 made during 2001 by A.G. Edwards from decedent's IRA and petitioner's IRA, respectively.
In the notice of deficiency (notice) that respondent issued to petitioner for her taxable year*112 2001, respondent determined to include in gross income for that year: (1) Interest income of $ 400 paid by American General, (2) other income of $ 1,365 paid by American General, (3) a gross distribution of $ 25,940 paid by Sun Life with respect to decedent's fixed annuity contract, (4) a gross distribution of $ 170,429 paid by Sun Life with respect to decedent's fixed/variable annuity contract, and (5) gross distributions of $ 10,200 made by A.G. Edwards from petitioner's IRA. 7 Respondent also determined in the notice that petitioner is liable for her taxable year 2001 for a $ 12,926 accuracy-related penalty under
In the amendment to answer, respondent asserted*113 an increased deficiency in, and an increased accuracy-related penalty under
OPINION
The only issue remaining for our consideration is whether petitioner is liable for her taxable year 2001 for the accuracy- related penalty under
Pursuant to
*115
It is respondent's position that petitioner's underpayment for her taxable year 2001 was attributable to (1) negligence or disregard of rules or regulations and (2) a substantial understatement of tax. We shall address only whether petitioner's underpayment for 2001 was attributable to a substantial understatement of tax. That is because our resolution of that question is determinative of whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under
For purposes of
The accuracy-related penalty under
Petitioner concedes that she should have reported in the 2001 joint return the respective distributions that Sun Life, A.G. Edwards, and American General made during 2001. Petitioner does not dispute that the understatement of tax in the 2001 joint return exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown in that return or $ 5,000. See
In support of her position that she is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty under
In further support of her position that she is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty under
We turn first to petitioner's claim at trial that she did not receive any of the Forms 1099 from Sun Life, A.G. Edwards, or American General showing the respective distributions that those companies made during 2001. Petitioner's claim that she received none of those forms strains credulity, and we reject it. The record does not establish, and petitioner does not contend, that the separate Sun Life Forms 1099-R showing the respective gross distributions made by Sun Life during 2001 with respect to decedent's annuity contracts and the separate A.G. Edwards*120 Forms 1099-R showing the respective gross distributions made by A.G. Edwards during 2001 from decedent's IRA and petitioner's IRA were addressed to an incorrect address. 14 Nor does the record establish, and petitioner does not contend, that she was having any problems in receiving mail around the time the payers in question (viz., Sun Life, A.G. Edwards, and American General) would have been required to issue Forms 1099 (i.e., by no later than January 31, 2002).
We turn now to petitioner's claim at trial that she believed that the respective gross distributions made by Sun Life and A.G. Edwards during 2001 were death benefits that are not taxable because some of her widowed friends told her during informal discussions that death benefits are not taxable. We find that it was unreasonable for petitioner to rely on any such informal statements*121 of her friends in concluding that the respective gross distributions that Sun Life and A.G. Edwards made during 2001 are not taxable. In determining whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith, generally the most important factor to consider "is the extent of the taxpayer's effort to assess the taxpayer's proper tax liability."
On the record before us, we find that petitioner did not have reasonable cause for, and did not act in good faith with respect to, any portion of the underpayment for her taxable year 2001. See
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that petitioner is liable for her taxable year 2001 for the accuracy-related penalty under
We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of the parties that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. It is not clear from the record whether decedent was receiving benefits before he died under the MFS Regatta Gold Fixed Annuity and/or the MFS Regatta Gold Fixed/Variable Annuity.↩
3. Before decedent died, petitioner's Bank of America checking account was a checking account maintained by both decedent and petitioner.↩
4. The instructions to Form 1099-R for 2001 describe distribution code "4" as "Death." Those instructions also state: "If the IRA/SEP/SIMPLE box is checked, you have received a traditional IRA, SEP, or SIMPLE distribution."↩
5. See supra note 3. Decedent endorsed the checks dated Feb. 2 and 9, Mar. 1, and Apr. 3, 2001. The only endorsement on each of the checks dated May 1 and June 12, 2001, was "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY".↩
6. The instructions to Form 1099-R for 2001 describe distribution code "7" as "Normal distribution." Those instructions further indicate that if the "IRA/SEP" box is checked, the recipient has received a traditional IRA or SEP distribution.↩
7. Respondent indicated in the notice that petitioner did not report in the 2001 joint return gross distributions of $ 8,500 made by A.G. Edwards during that year from decedent's IRA. Respondent failed to include in the computation of the $ 66,497 deficiency determined in the notice those unreported gross distributions. See infra note 10.↩
8. See supra note 7 and infra note 10.↩
9. Thus, although respondent bears the burden of production with respect to the accuracy-related penalty determined in the notice, respondent "need not introduce evidence regarding reasonable cause, substantial authority, or similar provisions."
Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446↩ (2001) .10. If we were to sustain respondent's position in the amendment to answer that petitioner is liable for her taxable year 2001 for an accuracy-related penalty under
sec. 6662(a) in excess of the amount of such penalty determined in the notice, it would be necessary for the parties to determine underRule 155 the increased amount of such penalty attributable to petitioner's underpayment for that year. That is because respondent incorrectly calculated the increased amount of the accuracy-related penalty undersec. 6662(a) asserted in the amendment to answer.The increased deficiency in, and the increased accuracy-related penalty under
sec. 6662(a) on, petitioner's tax for her taxable year 2001 that respondent asserted in the amendment to answer are attributable to gross distributions totaling $ 8,500 that petitioner concedes were made during 2001 from A.G. Edwards and were not reported in the 2001 joint return. See supra note 7. Respondent calculated the increased amount of the accuracy-related penalty undersec. 6662(a) to be $ 13,554. We believe that respondent erred in making that calculation. It appears that respondent calculated such increased amount as a percentage of the increased amount of the deficiency that respondent asserted in the amendment to answer. However, the accuracy-related penalty undersec. 6662(a) is equal to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment of tax to which that section applies. In the instant case, the increased deficiency for petitioner's taxable year 2001 that respondent asserted in the amendment to answer and that petitioner concedes is not equal to the underpayment for that year to which respondent assertssec. 6662↩ applies. In this connection, we note that in the notice respondent determined that the total tax withheld for taxable year 2001 was $ 4,825, and not $ 2,956 as reported in the 2001 joint tax return. In addition, petitioner reported in that return, and respondent did not adjust in the notice, $ 700 of estimated tax payments for her taxable year 2001.11. See supra note 10.↩
12. At the conclusion of the trial in this case, the Court directed the parties to file simultaneous opening briefs and simultaneous answering briefs. However, petitioner filed a notice of intent not to file posttrial briefs.↩
13. Petitioner did not give a similar explanation at trial as to why she did not include in gross income in the 2001 joint return the respective distributions of $ 400 of interest income and $ 1,365 of other income made by American General during 2001.↩
14. The record does not contain copies of any Form 1099 that American General issued with respect to the respective distributions during 2001 of interest and other income.↩
15. We note that the record does not establish that A.G. Edwards referred to the respective gross distributions that it made during 2001 as death benefits. The record shows that such distributions were from decedent's IRA and petitioner's IRA. Nor does the record establish that American General referred to the respective distributions that it made during 2001 as death benefits. The record shows that such distributions were of interest and other income. Although the record establishes that in Sun Life's June 18, 2001 letter and Sun Life's June 19, 2001 letter Sun Life indicated that "Anne Snyder is entitled to the death benefit options" and that one of those options was an "Immediate lump Minimum Death Benefit", the record shows that "the death benefit options" available were under decedent's annuity contracts. Only a death benefit paid under a life insurance contract because of the death of the insured is to be excluded from gross income.
Sec. 101(a) . If petitioner had consulted with a professional about the tax treatment of the respective gross distributions that Sun Life made during 2001 with respect to decedent's annuity contracts, she would have been advised that a so-called death benefit paid under an annuity contract is not to be excluded from gross income because of the death of the annuity contract holder. Seesec. 72↩ .16. It is significant that petitioner failed to call as witnesses at trial (1) the plan administrator to testify about the respective gross distributions that Sun Life made during 2001 with respect to decedent's annuity contracts, (2) a representative of A.G. Edwards to testify about the respective gross distributions that A.G. Edwards made during 2001 from decedent's IRA and petitioner's IRA, and (3) the accountant who prepared the 2001 joint return to testify about why the respective distributions made by Sun Life, A.G. Edwards, and American General during 2001 were not reported in that return. We presume that petitioner did not call those witnesses because their respective testimonies would not have been favorable to petitioner's position in this case. See
Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946) , affd.162 F.2d 514↩ (10th Cir. 1947) .17. The amount of the accuracy-related penalty under
sec. 6662(a) for which petitioner is liable is an amount that is in excess of the amount of such penalty determined in the notice and is to be determined underRule 155↩ . See supra note 10.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.