Pennington v. Comm'r

2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 144, 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 158
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 27, 2010
DocketDocket No. 5681-08S.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 144 (Pennington v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennington v. Comm'r, 2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 144, 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 158 (tax 2010).

Opinion

MARK PENNINGTON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Pennington v. Comm'r
Docket No. 5681-08S.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-144; 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 158;
September 27, 2010, Filed

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

*158

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Mark Pennington, Pro se.
Sarah Bolen, for respondent.
WELLS, Judge.

WELLS

WELLS, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for his 2003 tax year of $32,831, a failure to file addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $7,166, a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) of $6,688, and a failure to pay estimated income tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654 of $819. The parties stipulated several of the underlying issues. Both parties agree that petitioner is liable for a deficiency of $35,877 and that petitioner is not liable for a failure to pay *159 estimated income tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654.2 At trial, petitioner conceded that he was liable for the failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2). Accordingly, the only issue remaining for decision is whether petitioner is liable for the failure to file addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Background

Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated. The stipulations of fact are incorporated in this opinion by reference and are found accordingly.

At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Florida. Petitioner is married to Cynthia Pennington.

Throughout tax year 2003, petitioner worked as an attorney. Petitioner moved offices three times and his personal residence once between 2003 and February 2008. In the process, petitioner lost many of his personal records.

For tax year 2003, petitioner timely filed Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) *160 and included a payment of $983. Petitioner also filed Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request, with the IRS, stating that the total tax due was $8,171 and that he made a payment of $5,000 with his tax return. For the year in issue, respondent has no record of a Federal income tax return filed by petitioner or of any payment in excess of the $983 paid with Form 4868.

Petitioner sent the IRS a check dated April 17, 2006, for $4,597 for his tax year 2005 estimated Federal income tax liability. Respondent has no record of a return filed for tax year 2005.

Petitioner failed to file a tax return for tax year 2008.

Discussion

Generally, a return is considered filed with the IRS when the return is delivered to and received by the IRS. See United States v. Lombardo,241 U.S. 73, 76 (1916); Trout v. Commissioner,131 T.C. 239, 246 (2008). However, a return that is mailed by the taxpayer on or before the filing deadline and received by the IRS after the filing deadline may be considered timely filed if: (1) The postmark date falls on or before the filing deadline; and (2) the return is deposited in the mail in the United States in an envelope or wrapper properly addressed to the appropriate office *161 with postage prepaid. Sec. 7502(a). Where a return is sent by registered or certified mail, the registration or certification is prima facie evidence of delivery and the date of registration or certification is deemed the postmark date. Sec. 7502(c); sec. 301.7502-1(c)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs.

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return by the date prescribed (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing). The addition to tax is 5 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return if the failure to file does not exceed 1 month, with an additional 5 percent per month for each month the failure continues, up to a maximum of 25 percent.3*162 Id. However, the failure to file addition to tax is not imposed if the taxpayer can establish that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Id. To prove reasonable cause, the taxpayer must show that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence but nonetheless could not file the return when it was due.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Lombardo
241 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court, 1916)
HIGBEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
116 T.C. No. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
Trout v. Comm'r
131 T.C. No. 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
Crocker v. Commissioner
92 T.C. No. 57 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 T.C. Summary Opinion 144, 2010 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennington-v-commr-tax-2010.