Opinion ID: 778862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Correctness of Penalties for Inaccuracy

Text: 63 We affirm the District Court's application of accuracy-related penalties for Camelot's understatements of income on its returns. There was no substantial authority for the interest deduction. CM Holdings, 254 B.R. at 647-48. Only one case has broadened the common law exception for cases of first impression, which prevents the imposition of penalties, to the field of accuracy-related penalties for substantial understatement. Mitchell v. Commissioner, 2000 WL 428644, T.C.M. (RIA) 2000-145 (2000). But even this exception is reserved for issues where the statutory language was unclear. Neonatology Assoc. v. Commissioner, 299 F.3d 221, 2002 WL 1747513, at  n. 24 (3d Cir.2002). As the District Court pointed out, in this case there is no unclear statutory language, only applying novel facts to the judicially created sham transaction doctrine. 254 B.R. at 653. 64