Trowbridge v. Comm'r
This text of 2003 T.C. Memo. 164 (Trowbridge 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.
Opinion
Decision was entered for respondent.
R determined deficiencies in tax with respect to Ps (H and
W) for the years 1991-95, as well as additions to tax under
those years. Ps filed petitions for redetermination but failed
to appear at trial. R moved for default judgment with respect to
the deficiencies in tax determined against Ps for all years and
the additions to tax determined against H for the years 1991-93.
R proceeded to trial on the issues of (1) the additions to tax
determined against W for all years, and (2) the additions to tax
determined against H for 1994 and 1995.
1. Held: R's motion for default judgment is granted.
2. Held, further, Forms 1040 and 1040EZ filed
by Ps do not constitute valid Federal income tax returns.
3. Held, further, Ps are liable for the
additions to tax at issue in the amounts determined by R, with
minor adjustments.
*162 4. Held, further, H and W are liable for
penalties under
$ 15,000, respectively.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HALPERN, Judge: These cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion. By notices of deficiency dated October 11, 2000 (the notices of deficiency), respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, each petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows:
John Parks Trowbridge (Dr. Trowbridge)
*164
| Additions to Tax | |||
| Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6654 |
| 1991 | $ 6,533 | -- | $ 4 |
| 1992 | 9,492 | $ 1,380 | 222 |
| 1993 | 83,478 | 20,870 | 3,498 |
| 1994 | 121,075 | 30,269 | 6,283 |
| 1995 | 130,699 | 32,595 | 7,068 |
*165 Respondent has moved that petitioners be held in default with respect to the deficiencies in tax determined against them for all years and that Dr. Trowbridge be held in default with respect to the additions to tax determined against him for 1991, 1992, and 1993. In addition, respondent has moved for partial summary judgment in his favor with respect to the additions to tax determined against Dr. Trowbridge for 1994 and 1995 and the additions to tax determined against Ms. Martin for all years. Respondent has also asked the Court to impose a penalty on each petitioner under
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. For the sake of convenience, all dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
*166 FINDINGS OF FACT
Preliminary Facts
At the time the petitions were filed in these cases, each petitioner resided in Harris County, Texas.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Decision was entered for respondent.
R determined deficiencies in tax with respect to Ps (H and
W) for the years 1991-95, as well as additions to tax under
those years. Ps filed petitions for redetermination but failed
to appear at trial. R moved for default judgment with respect to
the deficiencies in tax determined against Ps for all years and
the additions to tax determined against H for the years 1991-93.
R proceeded to trial on the issues of (1) the additions to tax
determined against W for all years, and (2) the additions to tax
determined against H for 1994 and 1995.
1. Held: R's motion for default judgment is granted.
2. Held, further, Forms 1040 and 1040EZ filed
by Ps do not constitute valid Federal income tax returns.
3. Held, further, Ps are liable for the
additions to tax at issue in the amounts determined by R, with
minor adjustments.
*162 4. Held, further, H and W are liable for
penalties under
$ 15,000, respectively.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HALPERN, Judge: These cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion. By notices of deficiency dated October 11, 2000 (the notices of deficiency), respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, each petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows:
John Parks Trowbridge (Dr. Trowbridge)
*164
| Additions to Tax | |||
| Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6654 |
| 1991 | $ 6,533 | -- | $ 4 |
| 1992 | 9,492 | $ 1,380 | 222 |
| 1993 | 83,478 | 20,870 | 3,498 |
| 1994 | 121,075 | 30,269 | 6,283 |
| 1995 | 130,699 | 32,595 | 7,068 |
*165 Respondent has moved that petitioners be held in default with respect to the deficiencies in tax determined against them for all years and that Dr. Trowbridge be held in default with respect to the additions to tax determined against him for 1991, 1992, and 1993. In addition, respondent has moved for partial summary judgment in his favor with respect to the additions to tax determined against Dr. Trowbridge for 1994 and 1995 and the additions to tax determined against Ms. Martin for all years. Respondent has also asked the Court to impose a penalty on each petitioner under
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. For the sake of convenience, all dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
*166 FINDINGS OF FACT
Preliminary Facts
At the time the petitions were filed in these cases, each petitioner resided in Harris County, Texas.
Petitioners were married to each other during the years at issue but filed separate returns for those years.
Dr. Trowbridge is a physician, and Ms. Martin is a nurse and administrative assistant who, during the years at issue, was sometimes employed by Dr. Trowbridge's professional corporation.
Both petitioners are calendar year taxpayers.
Respondent's examination with respect to Dr. Trowbridge's 1991, 1992, and 1993 taxable years commenced before 1998. Respondent's examinations with respect to Dr. Trowbridge's 1994 and 1995 taxable years and Ms. Martin's 1991 through 1995 taxable years commenced after July 1998.
Dr. Trowbridge's 1993, 1994, and 1995 Forms 1040
1993 Form 1040 2
*167 On November 26, 1996, Dr. Trowbridge mailed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1993 (Dr. Trowbridge's 1993 Form 1040), which the IRS received on December 3, 1996. On page 2 of Dr. Trowbridge's 1993 Form 1040, he reported tax of $ 92,494 but stated: "SEE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER STATEMENT -- ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY IS ZERO". The attached disclaimer statement (the 1993 disclaimer) reads in part as follows:
The assessment and payment of income taxes is voluntary * * *
John respectfully declines to volunteer concerning assessment
and payment of any tax balance due on the return or any
redetermination of said tax. Be it known that we, separately and
together, therefore, deny tax liability and do not admit that
the stated amount of tax on return, as calculated solely by
reference to provided tables, is due and collectible. The tax
return read as a whole shows no amount as being the tax
and shows the tax to be zero and zero is the starting
point in determining a deficiency or any other action
involving this return. * * *
John has provided payment*168 in the amount of $ 1,000 as a voluntary
contribution.
The 1993 disclaimer is signed by Dr. Trowbridge and "Acknowledged in full agreement" by Ms. Martin.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Dr. Trowbridge's tax for 1993 of $ 83,478.
1994 Form 1040
On January 16, 1997, Dr. Trowbridge mailed to the IRS a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1994 (Dr. Trowbridge's 1994 Form 1040), which the IRS received on January 21, 1997. On page 2 of Dr. Trowbridge's 1994 Form 1040, he reported tax of $ 170,144 but stated: "SEE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER STATEMENT -- ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY IS ZERO". In substance, the attached disclaimer is identical to the 1993 disclaimer.
Dr. Trowbridge submitted to the IRS no other document purporting to be a return for 1994.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Dr. Trowbridge's tax for 1994 of $ 121,075. The only payment made by Dr. Trowbridge for 1994 was $ 1,000 paid on January 21, 1997, with his 1994 Form 1040.
1995 Form 1040
On January 20, 1997, Dr. Trowbridge mailed to the IRS a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1995 (Dr. Trowbridge's 1995 Form 1040), which the IRS received on January 27, 1997. On page 2 of Dr. Trowbridge's 1995 Form 1040, he*169 reported tax of $ 133,977 but stated: "SEE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER STATEMENT -- ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY IS ZERO". In substance, the attached disclaimer is identical to the 1993 disclaimer.
Dr. Trowbridge submitted to the IRS no other document purporting to be a return for 1995.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Dr. Trowbridge's tax for 1995 of $ 130,699. The only payment made by Dr. Trowbridge for 1995 was $ 1,000 paid on January 27, 1997, with his 1995 Form 1040.
Ms. Martin's 1991 Through 1995 Income Tax Filings
1991 Form 1040
On or around November 1, 1996, Ms. Martin mailed to the IRS a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1991 (Ms. Martin's 1991 Form 1040), which the IRS received on November 4, 1996. On page 2 of Ms. Martin's 1991 Form 1040, she reported tax of $ 5,203 and withholding of $ 19,640. She also stated: "SEE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER STATEMENT -- ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY IS ZERO". The attached disclaimer refers to her but, in substance, is identical to the 1993 disclaimer.
Ms. Martin submitted to the IRS no other document purporting to be a return for 1991.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Ms. Martin's tax for 1991 of $ 6,197. The only payment made by Ms. *170 Martin for 1991 was $ 100 paid on November 4, 1996, with her 1991 Form 1040.
1992 Form 1040
On or around November 1, 1996, Ms. Martin mailed to the IRS a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1992 (Ms. Martin's 1992 Form 1040), which the IRS received on November 4, 1996. On page 2 of Ms. Martin's 1992 Form 1040, she reported tax of $ 1,805 and withholding of $ 7,944. She also stated: "SEE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER STATEMENT -- ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY IS ZERO". The attached disclaimer refers to her but, in substance, is identical to the 1993 disclaimer.
Ms. Martin submitted to the IRS no other document purporting to be a return for 1992.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Ms. Martin's tax for 1992 of $ 8,740. The only payment made by Ms. Martin for 1992 was $ 100 paid on November 4, 1996, with her 1992 Form 1040.
1993 and
Ms. Martin did not file Federal income tax returns for either 1993 or 1994. She did not make any estimated tax payments for those years.
Respondent determined deficiencies of $ 74,612 and $ 102,588 in Ms. Martin's taxes for 1993 and 1994, respectively.
1995 Form 1040EZ
On or about January 20, 1997, Ms. Martin mailed to the IRS a Form*171 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for Singles and Joint Filers With No Dependents 1995 (Ms. Martin's 1995 Form 1040EZ), which the IRS received on January 21, 1997. On Ms. Martin's 1995 Form 1040EZ, she reported tax of $ 0, an earned income credit of $ 234, and withholding of $ 635. She also stated: "SEE ATTACHED DISCLAIMER STATEMENT -- ADMITTED TAX LIABILITY IS ZERO". The attached disclaimer refers to her but, in substance, is identical to the 1993 disclaimer.
Ms. Martin submitted to the IRS no other document purporting to be a return for 1995.
Respondent determined a deficiency in Ms. Martin's tax for 1995 of $ 111,266. The only payment made by Ms. Martin for 1995 was $ 100 paid on January 21, 1997, with her 1995 Form 1040EZ.
The Pleadings and Related Matters
The Petitions
In response to the notices of deficiency, both petitioners filed petitions on January 9, 2001. In many respects, the petitions are identical. Dr. Trowbridge's petition is 74 pages long, and Ms. Martin's petition is 75 pages long. Although the petitions do assign error to respondent's determinations, for the most part, they make a convoluted argument that subjecting petitioners to the same rate of tax as Federal employees*172 constitutes impermissible "disparate treatment". Petitioners cite a variety of Code sections and regulatory materials to show that public employees and certain others receive benefits from the Federal Government that are not available to petitioners as "private independent contractors" or "private sector workers". They state:
In direct contrast to the private independent contractor,
or non-government workers whose economic position, and rate of
personal earnings are not fixed and guaranteed by statute, the
rate instead is controlled by what the market place will bear
and without any position fixed by statute. This gives the
government employees or officers a great personal and economic
advantage over that afforded to the private independent
contractor, or non-government workers, and as such creates a
disparate or unequal treatment under the law, because the
Internal Revenue Service administratively states that the
private independent contractors, or private sector workers pay
[sic] must pay the same rate or percentage of tax on net income
as do the government employees*173 under Title
services, benefits, contributions, or funds.
They argue that either respondent has to afford them a lower, special tax rate or they must be afforded the same benefits as Federal Government employees:
it is the position of this petitioner, that there is within the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC), a separate taxing statute with a
reduced or compensatory rate of tax for the taxpayers who are
"private independent contractors", or "private
sector workers". If not, then this petitioner is entitled to
receive the same compensation in benefits and economic
protections as the federal employee, appointed or elected
official, or corporate or partnership individuals.
Respondent's Motions for a More Definite Statement
In response to the petitions, respondent moved in each case for a more definite statement or to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Following a hearing on respondent's motions, we declined to dismiss but concluded that the petitions contained frivolous and groundless*174 allegations. We struck from the petitions all such allegations, which constituted the bulk of the petitions.
The Answers
On May 17, 2001, respondent filed his answers to the abridged petitions, denying all material allegations of fact made in support of the lone remaining assignment of error contained therein.
Standing Pretrial Order and Notice
On May 29, 2001, the Court issued its Standing Pretrial Order and Notice in each case, setting the cases for trial at the trial session of the Court commencing on December 3, 2001, in Houston, Texas.
Petitioners' Discovery Requests
On September 20 and 25, 2001, Ms. Martin and Dr. Trowbridge, respectively, served on respondent a request for admissions. Each request is over 140 pages in length (without attachments) and requests over 600 admissions.
On September 27, 2001, each petitioner served on respondent interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Each set of interrogatories is over 125 pages in length and contains over 500 interrogatories.
On October 4, 2001, respondent filed motions for protective orders with respect to the requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents served by*175 petitioners. Respondent argued that such requests were not timely, addressed improper issues, and were intended to burden respondent unduly, waste his resources, and divert him from trial preparation. We asked petitioners to respond and, after considering their responses, granted respondent relief "substantially for the reasons stated in respondent's motions."
Petitioners' Dismissal Efforts
Motions To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
On November 21, 2001, Dr. Trowbridge submitted "for the petitioners" a motion styled "Petitioner's Verified Challenge to Jurisdiction of the Court", which we filed in each case as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion "denies the existence of any contracts or commercial agreements which create an attachment of an equity relationship between the 'United States' and/or The State of Texas and Petitioner." The motion also states: "Petitioner has specifically forfeited, waived, rejected, declined, and refused to voluntarily accept any and all benefits, especially admiralty and limited debt liability benefits, from the 'United States' and its instrumentalities." Apparently on those bases, the motion then states: "Petitioner hereby gives*176 formal notice to the Court of Petitioner's status as a nonjuristic person, a Texas state Citizen, and that, in such status, Petitioner squarely challenges and voids the jurisdiction of this Court." Petitioners claimed in the motion that we lack "in personam" jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. We denied the motion.
Motions To Dismiss
On November 23, 2001, Dr. Trowbridge submitted (and Ms. Martin signed "in full agreement") a motion styled "Petitioner's Notice of Withdrawal of Petition", which we filed in each case as a motion to dismiss (the motions to dismiss) and denied. 3 In those motions, petitioners reiterated their claims that we lack jurisdiction and stated that they wished to withdraw their petitions: "Petitioner hereby gives Notice of WITHDRAWAL of the petition for review by the United States Tax Court. This Notice of Withdrawal of petition makes moot, voids, and cancels all proceedings previously scheduled by this Court for action upon the petition filed in error."
*177 Trial Session
These cases were called from the calendar at the Court's trial session commencing on Monday, December 3, 2001, in Houston, Texas. On Friday, November 30, 2001, an employee of the Court Clerk's Office contacted petitioners and reminded them that they were expected to appear at the call of the calendar on Monday, December 3. When, on that date, the cases were called from the calendar, petitioners failed to appear. Counsel for respondent appeared and announced ready for trial. The Court set the cases for trial on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and directed the deputy trial clerk to contact petitioners by telephone and notify them of the date and time of the trial. When the cases were recalled from the calendar on December 4, for trial, petitioners failed to appear. Counsel for respondent appeared and announced ready for trial. The deputy trial clerk reported that he had left messages for both petitioners as to the date and time of the trial. Respondent moved to dismiss for default in both cases and the Court set those motions for a hearing on Friday, December 7, 2001. The Court instructed respondent's counsel to arrange personal service of the petitioners, to*178 inform them of the hearing. The Court heard one witness in support of respondent's case.
On Friday, December 7, 2001, the cases were recalled from the calendar for a hearing on respondent's motions to dismiss for default. Petitioners failed to appear. Counsel for respondent appeared and announced ready for the hearing. Internal Revenue Agent Marilyn MacIness testified that she had served each petitioner personally with notice of the hearing. The Court took respondent's motions to dismiss for default under advisement.
OPINION
Respondent has moved (1) that Dr. Trowbridge be held in default with respect to, and that a decision be entered in respondent's favor in the full amount of, the deficiencies in tax determined by respondent against Dr. Trowbridge for the years 1991 through 1995 and the additions to tax determined by respondent against Dr. Trowbridge for the years 1991 through 1993, and (2) that Ms. Martin be held in default with respect to, and that a decision be entered in respondent's favor in the full amount of, the deficiencies in tax determined by respondent against Ms. Martin for the*179 years 1991 through 1995. Petitioners object, respectively, to those motions (collectively, the default motions). 4
In pertinent part,
(a) Default: If any party has failed to plead or
otherwise proceed as provided by these Rules or as required by
the Court, then such party may be held in default by the Court
either on motion of another party or on the initiative of the
Court. Thereafter, the Court may enter a decision against the
defaulting party, upon such terms and conditions as the Court
may deem proper * * *
Respondent argues that petitioners' failures to appear for the call of these cases on December 3, 2001, and*180 at the trial of the cases on December 4, 2001, constitute defaults and that it is appropriate for the Court to enter default judgments against each with respect to the deficiencies and additions to tax that are the subject of the default motions.
Petitioners object to the default motions principally on the ground that each had withdrawn his or her petition (by the motions to dismiss, which we had denied).
We have no doubt that petitioners had knowledge of the call of these cases on December 3, 2001, and the recall of the cases on December 4 and 7, 2001. We assume that petitioners failed to answer those calls because they no longer wished to continue their cases in this Court; that is the position taken by them in the motions to dismiss (which we denied). We shall, therefore, hold each of them in default. We shall enter a decision against each petitioner that includes the full amount of the deficiencies in tax and additions to tax that are the subject of the default motions. That is appropriate since respondent had denied all material allegations of fact set forth in the petitions in support of the assignments of error and none of petitioners' filings has otherwise convinced us that*181 respondent in any way erred in determining the deficiencies in tax and additions to tax that are the subject of the default motions.
Respondent proceeded to trial on the issues of the additions to tax determined against Dr. Trowbridge for the years 1994 and 1995 and the additions to tax determined against Ms. Martin for the years 1991 through 1995 (collectively, the remaining additions to tax) on account of the burden of production imposed on the Secretary by current
Respondent has moved for partial summary judgment in his favor with respect to the remaining additions to tax. Petitioners object, respectively, to those motions (collectively, the summary judgment motions).
*182 A party may move for "summary adjudication in the moving party's favor upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy."
Respondent has moved for partial summary judgments, but, since there was a trial in these cases, at which respondent presented evidence pertaining to the remaining additions to tax, we need not determine whether the summary judgment motions satisfy the standards for summary adjudication. We shall, therefore, deny the summary judgment motions (although we largely sustain respondent's substantive*183 positions therein, as discussed below).
1. Section 6651(a)(1)
2. Section 6654
There are two mechanical exceptions to the applicability of the
D. Section 7491(c)
1. Petitioners' Forms 1040 and 1040EZ
*187 Respondent contends that the Forms 1040 and 1040EZ filed by petitioners with respect to the years at issue do not constitute valid returns. 10 In
2. Respondent's Section 6651(a)(1) Determinations
As relevant to his
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that respondent established a prima facie case that the determination of 25-percent additions to tax under
3. Respondent's Section 6654 Determinations
As relevant to his
*190 In the absence of valid returns, the applicability of the $ 500 de minimis exception to the
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that respondent established a prima facie case that the determination of additions to tax under
III. Section 6673(a)(1) Penalties
Respondent asks that we impose a penalty against each petitioner under
In pertinent part,
(a) Tax Court Proceedings. --
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc. --
Whenever*192 it appears to the Tax Court that --
(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or
maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is
frivolous or groundless, or
* * * * * * *
the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay
to the United States a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000.
The purpose of
Petitioners do not here argue for any change in the law, and there is no plausible argument that, as maintained in the disclaimers attached to their Forms 1040 and 1040EZ, the payment of income taxes is voluntary. E. g.,
We are also convinced by petitioners' conduct that they both instituted and maintained these proceedings for delay, which is a separate basis for imposing a
To reflect the foregoing,
Appropriate orders will be issued, and decisions will be entered under
Footnotes
1. During the years at issue, Ms. Martin was married to Dr. Trowbridge and was known as Sabrina L. Trowbridge. She is now known as Sabrina Martin, and we shall refer to her as Ms. Martin for all purposes in this report.
↩ Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654 1991 $ 6,197 $ 105 -- 1992 8,740 1,198 $ 190 1993 74,612 18,653 3,126 1994 102,588 25,647 5,323 1995 111,266 27,679 6,000 2. As discussed
infra , Dr. Trowbridge's 1993 Form 1040 is relevant to the determination of whether he is liable for thesec. 6654 ↩ addition to tax with respect to his 1994 taxable year.3. To the extent petitioners were relying on grounds other than jurisdiction, a decision dismissing the proceedings would have been considered a decision sustaining the deficiencies determined by respondent. See
sec. 7459(d)↩ . Since we did not believe that was the result petitioners intended, we denied the motions to dismiss.4. Although petitioners failed to appear at the hearing on the default motions, they did submit a document to the Court that day styled "Mandatory Judicial Notice of Petitioner's Refusal for Cause of Respondent's Motion for Default Judgment", which we filed in each case as an objection to the respective default motions.↩
5. We do not decide whether respondent was required to satisfy
sec. 7491(c)↩ in this default setting.6. In general, payment of income tax is due on the due date of the corresponding return, determined without regard to any filing extensions.
Sec. 6151(a)↩ .7. Under
sec. 6654(g)(1)↩ , wage withholding credits are treated as payments of estimated tax.8. Effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1997, the threshold amount is $ 1,000. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,
Pub. L. 105-34, sec. 1202(a), 111 Stat. 994↩. 9.
Sec. 7491(c) applies to court proceedings arising in connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998. Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,Pub. L. 105- 206, sec. 3001(c)(1), 112 Stat. 727↩ . As referenced in our findings of fact, the additions to tax not included in the default motions (collectively, the remaining additions to tax) pertain to examinations commenced after July 1998.10. We address that contention separately because it is relevant to our analysis of both the
sec. 6651(a)(1) and thesec. 6654↩ additions to tax asserted by respondent.11. In his
sec. 6651(a)(1) computations, respondent properly credited each petitioner with one-half of petitioners' aggregate wage withholding credit where applicable. Seesec. 6651(b)(1) ;sec. 1.31-1(a) , Income Tax Regs. (rule for wage withholding credits of separately filing spouses domiciled in a community property State). Respondent also properly credited Ms. Martin with her earned income credit for 1995. Seesec. 6651(b)(1)↩ .12. Respondent inexplicably based his 1992
sec. 6651(a)(1) computation for Ms. Martin on tax of $ 8,764 rather than the $ 8,740 amount of tax that appears elsewhere in the notice of deficiency issued to her. The correct amount of such addition shall be the subject of aRule 155↩ computation.13. As is the case with his
sec. 6651(a)(1) computations, respondent properly credited each petitioner with one-half of petitioners' aggregate wage withholding credit where applicable. Seesec. 6654(g)(1) , supra note 7;sec. 1.31-1(a)↩ , Income Tax Regs., supra note 11.14. Respondent inexplicably based his 1992
sec. 6654 computation for Ms. Martin on tax of $ 8,764 rather than the $ 8,740 amount of tax that appears elsewhere in the notice of deficiency issued to her. In his 1995sec. 6654 computation for Ms. Martin, rather than reducing her 1995 tax by the amount of her 1995 earned income credit, respondent improperly treated that credit as a payment of estimated tax. Seesec. 6654(f)(3) and (g)(1) . The correct amounts of those additions to tax shall be the subject ofRule 155↩ computations.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2003 T.C. Memo. 164, 85 T.C.M. 1450, 2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trowbridge-v-commr-tax-2003.