Tamara W. Ashford

This U.S. Tax Court case involved the Estate of Georgia M. Spenlinhauer and its executor, Robert J. Spenlinhauer, challenging IRS determinations of a $3.98 million estate tax deficiency, a $996,086 late-filing addition to tax, and related penalties, along with the IRS's assertion that Robert was liable as a transferee for those amounts. After concessions, the court addressed issues including the timeliness of an alternate valuation election, the fair market values of real property and business interests, includibility of certain assets and gifts, allowable deductions for expenses, and transferee liability. The court held that the estate was liable for the deficiency and addition to tax due to undervaluations, unreported gifts, and failure to timely file the return, and that Robert was liable as transferee because he transferred the estate's remaining assets to himself, rendering it insolvent under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act without receiving reasonably equivalent value. The accuracy-related penalty was not upheld against the estate or transferee.

taxespropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved taxpayers who had engaged in breeding, boarding, showing, and training Arabian horses since 1981 and claimed loss deductions related to that activity on their joint federal income tax returns for 2004 through 2009. The IRS audited the returns, disallowed the deductions on the ground that the activity was not pursued for profit under section 183, and determined tax deficiencies along with additions to tax for late filing. The Tax Court held for the Commissioner on both issues remaining after the parties settled the accuracy-related penalties, concluding that the taxpayers had not shown the requisite profit motive given their history of sustained losses and other facts, and that they had not established reasonable cause for the untimely filings despite the wife's caregiving duties. The court therefore sustained the deficiencies and the section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved consolidated Tax Court petitions by a married couple, Gina Jaha and Bob Anderson, challenging IRS notices of deficiency for federal income taxes, additions to tax under sections 6651 and 6654, and related issues for tax years 2005 through 2009. After respondent concessions on certain deductions, the court considered whether petitioners had properly elected joint filing status under California community property law, whether Mr. Anderson had unreported gross receipts from his multilevel marketing business, entitlement to additional deductions, self-employment tax liability, and liability for the additions to tax. The court found that petitioners failed to file returns or establish reasonable cause for their failures, sustained the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax except for one instance against Ms. Jaha in 2008, and sustained the section 6654 estimated tax additions to tax in full. It based these holdings on the absence of filed returns, the IRS's satisfaction of its burden of production, and petitioners' failure to raise applicable exceptions or defenses.

taxes

The case concerned whether James Clark was liable for self-employment tax on $50,222 in 2019 income from freelance movie review writing and sales of movie-related memorabilia, which he reported as "other income" on his federal tax return, along with an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). After concessions, the Tax Court resolved the issues in favor of the IRS. The court held that the income was derived from a trade or business and thus subject to self-employment tax. It further sustained the penalty because it was automatically calculated through the IRS's Automated Underreporter Program, exempting it from supervisory approval requirements, and Clark failed to show reasonable cause or good faith efforts to determine his correct tax liability given his long history of self-employment.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether petitioner Sonji Marie Mosley was entitled to a net operating loss carryforward deduction, a capital loss carryforward deduction, and relief from the 10% additional tax on early IRA distributions under section 72(t), as well as whether she was liable for additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654 for the 2018 tax year. The IRS had determined a deficiency of $83,373 plus additions to tax based on unreported income including wages and IRA distributions totaling over $257,000. The Tax Court, deciding the case on stipulated facts without trial, held that petitioner was not entitled to the claimed deductions because she had failed to properly report the tax consequences of prior foreclosures on her rental properties and land in 2009 and instead claimed losses in later years. The court also upheld the section 72(t) tax because petitioner was under age 59½ when she received the distributions and found her liable for the additions to tax due to failure to file, pay, and make estimated payments, with no applicable exceptions shown. All issues were resolved in favor of the Commissioner.

taxes

This case involved petitioners Leon A. Greenblatt III and Leslie N. Jabine Greenblatt challenging IRS determinations of tax deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties for their 2008 and 2009 tax years related to their S corporation business activities. The Tax Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to substantial net operating loss carryforward deductions due to lack of adequate substantiation from their S corporation's records, failed to report certain income, and were not entitled to a general business credit. The court also found them liable for additions to tax for untimely filing their returns but not for accuracy-related penalties because they reasonably relied on their accountant's advice. The reasoning centered on the petitioners' burden to prove their deductions and the specifics of their business activities through Scattered Corp.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a taxpayer who received distributions totaling $14,425 from three pension or retirement plans in 2017 but reported only $1,698 as the taxable amount on his Form 1040A, despite receiving Forms 1099-R showing the full amounts as taxable. The IRS determined a $3,175 deficiency after issuing a notice of deficiency based on those forms. The Tax Court ruled for the IRS, holding that the full distributions constituted taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code. The court reasoned that the statutory rules governed, and neither a prior IRS Notice CP12 adjusting other aspects of the return nor alleged advice from an IRS helpline created any binding obligation or estoppel preventing the correct tax determination.

taxes