1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*221 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN,
Additions to Tax and Penalty | |||
Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | |
Year | 6651(a)(1) | 6653(a)(1)(A) | 6653(a(1)(B) |
1987 | $ 413 | $ 1,837 | 1 |
1988 | 4,187 | -- | -- |
1989 | 9,491 | -- | -- |
Additions to Tax and Penalty | |||
Sec. | Sec. | Sec. | |
Year | 6653(a)(1) | 6661 | 6662(a) |
1987 | -- | $ 2,064 | -- |
1988 | $ 3,663 | 4,188 | -- |
1989 | -- | -- | $ 7,593 |
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The issues for decision are whether petitioners are liable for the additions to tax and penalty determined by respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in Austin, Texas.
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*222 Mark J. Hanna (Mr. Hanna) was an attorney for Babb & Hanna, P.C. (Babb & Hanna), during the years in issue. Deborah A. Hanna (Mrs. Hanna) worked in the real estate business and as a consultant for Babb & Hanna during the years in issue.
Petitioners requested and received extensions to October 15, 1988, to file their 1987 income tax return. The 1987 return was signed by them October 15, 1988. It was mailed on or after October 15, 1988, but was returned for insufficient postage. It was thereafter remailed. The envelope in which the 1987 return was received was not retained by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The return was stamped by the IRS, however, showing the postmark date of the return as October 31, 1988, and the received date of the return as November 3, 1988.
On their 1987 return, petitioners reported adjusted gross income in the amount of $ 190,280.08. In late 1988, the IRS issued a delinquency penalty notice to petitioners concerning their 1987 return. Petitioners paid without protest the amount shown on the notice.
Petitioners requested and received extensions to October 15, 1989, to file their 1988 income tax return. Petitioners included a $ 20,000 payment with their1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*223 original request for extension. IRS records do not indicate that petitioners received an additional extension of time to file their 1988 return.
Beginning in March 1990, Mr. Hanna was involved in litigation with his former business partner. Due to the pending litigation, Mr. Hanna was denied access to his tax records that were located on the premises of his former business office.
On April 16, 1990, petitioners sent an additional $ 25,000 check on their 1988 tax liability to the IRS. Petitioners stopped payment on the check, however, based on a District Court order (court order) related to the litigation. Petitioners' 1988 return was filed on October 17, 1990, and did not have attached an original extension request. Petitioners' 1988 return reported adjusted gross income of $ 254,374.46 and indicated additional taxes owed of $ 21,513.99.
Petitioners also requested and were granted an extension to October 15, 1990, to file petitioners' 1989 return. Petitioners sent a check in the amount of $ 25,000 with the initial application for extension, but Mr. Hanna stopped payment on the check. Petitioners had paid only $ 12,000 through withholding toward their 1989 tax liability when the1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*224 request for extension was filed. Petitioners' 1989 return, postmarked October 15, 1990, reported adjusted gross income of $ 268,689.71 and a total tax liability of $ 59,903.15, with petitioners owing $ 47,903.15.
After audits of Babb & Hanna's and petitioners' Federal income tax returns, petitioners agreed to assessment and collection of respondent's proposed deficiencies in the amounts of $ 8,257.40, $ 16,749.05, and $ 37,965.82 for 1987, 1988, and 1989, respectively. These deficiencies arose from petitioners' mischaracterization of petitioners' personal expenses that were paid by Babb & Hanna as business expenses. The computations of the additions to tax and penalty that respondent determined are based on the liabilities assessed by the agreement.
OPINION
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
Petitioners argue that respondent's failure to retain the envelope bearing the 1987 return in their file should relieve them of liability for the
Mr. Hanna testified that petitioners' 1988 return was mailed on or about October 15, 1989, and that it was not until he requested a copy of petitioners' 1988 return from the IRS that he discovered that the 1988 return had not been filed. This explanation is implausible. The 1988 return indicated that $ 21,513.99 was owed by petitioners. Petitioners presumably would have noticed if a check in this amount had been sent with the return and had not cleared their account. If no check was sent, they would have expected to receive a notice to pay the balance shown.
Mr. Hanna claims to have requested another extension to file petitioners' 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*227 1988 return after discovering that the 1988 return had not been filed with the IRS. He testified that this extension was granted, extending the due date for petitioners' 1988 return until October 15, 1990. A document was introduced at trial that purported to be a copy of the approved extension request that extended the due date of petitioners' 1988 return until October 15, 1990. IRS records regarding the 1988 tax year to which petitioners stipulated do not indicate that the IRS ever received this request or that such a request was approved. In this case, the maximum extension authorized by law is 6 months.
While we question the validity of the purported 1990 extension, we need not reach that issue. Petitioners were initially granted extensions to October 15, 1989, for filing their 1988 return. The additional request for extension was not signed by petitioners until August 15, 1990, 10 months after the initial extensions had expired. Even if petitioners' August 15, 1990, request had been mistakenly approved by the IRS, petitioners could not have relied on it as permission for the late filing. The 10-month period during which they did not have an outstanding extension1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*228 justifies the
Petitioners requested and received an extension to file their 1989 return. An extension of time to file does not extend the time for payment of any tax due, and the form must "be accompanied by the full remittance of the amount properly estimated as tax which is unpaid as of the date prescribed for the filing of the return."
Petitioners did not produce at trial any evidence of how they calculated their tax liability for 1989 when making their original extension request. Federal taxes totaling $ 12,000 had been withheld from petitioners' income during 1989, but petitioners did not include any additional1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*229 payment of taxes with their initial 1989 extension application. On their 1989 return, filed in October 1990, petitioners calculated their adjusted gross income to be $ 268,689.71 and their total tax liability to be $ 59,903.15.
Petitioners failed to offer any evidence that would explain how they computed their tax liability for purposes of the extension request, on which their tax liability was underestimated by more than $ 47,000. Petitioners argue that reasonable cause existed for their failure to estimate properly because their tax records for 1989 were unavailable due to pending litigation with Mr. Hanna's former business associate. Inability to obtain information does not generally constitute reasonable cause if taxpayers could have filed a timely return with a reasonable degree of accuracy based on their best knowledge. See
Respondent appropriately voided petitioners' 1989 extension because petitioners failed to estimate properly their tax liability, as required under
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
Petitioners have produced no evidence that their failure to file timely in 1987 and 1988 was due to reasonable cause. Petitioners' failure to file is prima facie evidence of negligence. See
In addition, petitioners understated their income in 1987 and 1988 due to their practice of mischaracterizing as business expenses, and failing to report as income, their personal expenses that were paid by Babb & Hanna. Mr. 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*232 Hanna testified that he was aware that personal expenses were being paid by the corporation but assumed that they would ultimately be charged as income to him. He gave no reason for failing to report the payments as income in the years that they were made. Such mischaracterization of expenses is strong evidence of petitioners' lack of due care and disregard of the income tax rules or regulations. See, e.g.,
Respondent's determination that petitioners are liable for the
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
The
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the
The accuracy-related penalty does not apply with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for such portion of an underpayment and that petitioners acted in good faith with respect to such portion.
The underpayment of petitioners' tax for 1989 was substantial in that it totaled almost $ 38,000. Because they failed to show how the amount paid with their request for extension was estimated, petitioners also failed to show that they acted in good faith with respect to the underpayment. See
To reflect1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 221">*235 the foregoing,
1. Plus 50 percent of the interest due on $ 8,257.↩