TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mark Edward Arroll
Docket Number: 15597-13S
Judge: Panuthos
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/17/2014
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MARK EDWARD ARROLL, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent SD ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. ) ) ) ) ) 15597-13S. ORD E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos at New York, New York (Westbury), on November 4, 2014, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Peter J. Panuthos Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 17, 2014 SERVED Nov 17 2014 Capital Reporting Company Bench Opinion by Chief Special Trial Judge Peter J. 3 Panuthos November 4, 2014 1 2 3 4 Mark Edward Arroll v. Commissioner 5 6 7 8 9 Docket No. 15597-13S THE COURT: Good morning all. The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact andopinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of 10 fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and 11 . opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other case. This case was heard as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section references contained in this bench opinion are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for 2011, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. By notice of deficiency dated May 2, 2013 respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Federal income tax for the taxable year 2011 in the amount of $3,324. Respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that petitioner omitted alternative minimum tax of $3,324. Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for a section 6662(a) penalty. . In the stipulation of facts, petitioner conceded that "Respondent correctly calculated 9 petitioner's tax year 2011 alternative minimum tax in 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 the amount of $3,324." Petitioner appears to argue that since respondent paid petitioner a refund based on an overpayment claimed on petitioner's 2011 return (in amount less than that reflected on the return) that respondent cannot determine a deficiency. As noted in the bench opinion issued to this petitioner for his 2010 tax year, it is well established that respondent is entitled to determine a deficiency notwithstanding his initial acceptance of 19 petitioner's return as showing an overpayment. 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the stipulation of facts, petitioner and respondent agree that the 2011 Federal Income tax return filed by petitioner, line 45, reflected a dash ("-") as the amount of alternative minimum tax on line 45 of the Form 1040. Petitioner suggests that the dash implies that petitioner made a reasonable 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 attempt to compute the alternative minimum tax. At trial, petitioner produced no such calculation of the alternative minimum tax. There was no explanation by petitioner of any reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code or the instructions for preparation of the Form 1040. We are satisfied that petitioner, an attorney, did not make a reasonable effort to ascertain his correct tax liability. As such the penalty under section 6662(a) is appropriate. See Gomez v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 1999-94. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for the respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:18 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com