Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль

Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Fatai O. and Mary T. King v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 2000-124, Docket No. 4373-99., Filed April 10, 2000

Fatai O. and Mary T. King v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 2000-124, Docket No. 4373-99., Filed April 10, 2000


Fatai O. and Mary T. King v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 2000-124

Docket No. 4373-99.

Filed April 10, 2000.

Fatai O. King, pro se. John R. Gilbert and Paul J. Sude, for the respondent.


FOLEY, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated December 7, 1998, respondent determined a $12,736 deficiency and a $2,547 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty relating to Fatai and Mary King's 1995 Federal income tax. In an amendment to the answer, respondent asserted a section 6663(a) fraud penalty. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1995.

The Kings, who resided in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, when they filed their petition, owned and operated a newsstand business. After concessions, the remaining issues are whether petitioners are entitled to a $12,554 section 179, and a $1,845 depreciation, deduction relating to newsstand construction. In support of these deductions, petitioners presented the Internal Revenue Service and the Court with canceled checks and an affidavit purportedly from Leroy Lee, who, petitioners contended, did the newsstand construction. The checks had been altered, and the affidavit was false, handwritten by Mr. King, and signed "Lee Leroy" rather than "Leroy Lee".

When respondent mistakenly went to Mr. King's business address to serve a subpoena to Mr. Lee, Mr. King posed as Mr. Lee and accepted service of the subpoena. In response to Mr. Lee's testimony that he had worked only on petitioners' home and did not give Mr. King an affidavit, Mr. King testified that "Lee Leroy" rather than "Leroy Lee" had worked on the newsstands, and that Mr. Leroy "wasn't coming" to testify. Mr. King knowingly submitted false and altered documents. In addition, his testimony was deliberately misleading, evasive, and untruthful.

Petitioners are not entitled to the claimed deductions. In addition, Mr. King intentionally underreported taxable income and attempted to conceal, mislead, and prevent the collection of taxes. See Rowlee v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,228], 80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983). Accordingly, Mr. King is liable, pursuant to section 6663, for the fraud penalty, but, pursuant to section 6662(b), petitioners are not liable for an accuracy-related penalty.

Respondent moved for a penalty pursuant to section 6673, which provides that the Court may impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000. Petitioners' position is manifestly frivolous and groundless, see sec. 6673(a)(1)(B), and they have wasted the resources of this Court. We also note that this was the second trial at which petitioners submitted altered documents to this Court. See King v. Commissioner [Dec. 52,580(M)], T.C. Memo. 1998-69, affd. without published opinion [99-1 USTC ╤ 50,570] 182 F.3d 903 (3d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Court will impose a $5,000 penalty.

Contentions not addressed are moot, irrelevant, or meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order will be issued and Decision will be entered under Rule 155. *


* By official Tax Court Order dated May 10, 2000, and signed by Judge Maurice B. Foley, the decision line was amended to read as indicated.



Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  


Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Как открыть для себя «Личный кабинет налогоплательщика»?

Если у вас нет еще доступа в ваш «Личный кабинет», то советую сделать