Judgment entered for petitioner as to 2000 penalty and for respondent as to deficiencies.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and accuracy-related penalty on petitioner's Federal income taxes:
Penalty
Year Deficiency
1999 $ 2,133 --
2000 43,698 $ 8,740
After concessions, 1 we must decide whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, 2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 54">*55 petitioner's principal place of business was in San Francisco, California.
Petitioner hired Cameron & Rolling, an accounting firm, to prepare its 2000 Federal income tax return. Petitioner's business grew rapidly in 2000, and Cameron & Rolling required a substantial amount of time to review petitioner's financial records. Cameron & Rolling examined petitioner's financial records to "[clean] up the books" and ensure compliance with GAAP and to prepare the records to file an accurate Federal income tax return. A Cameron & Rolling accountant spoke with petitioner's owners about "the usage of the plane to determine if we could fully depreciate it and deduct the expenses associated with the plane."
On its 2000 Federal income tax return, petitioner deducted the following amounts for the acquisition and operation of an airplane: Operating expenses of $ 23,033, interest expenses of $ 29,742, and depreciation of $ 128,289. Respondent disallowed these deductions and determined that petitioner was liable for an income tax deficiency of $ 43,698 and an accuracy-related penalty of $ 8,740 for 2000.
OPINION
Pursuant to
It is clear from the record that petitioner provided Cameron & Rolling all records and information necessary to prepare the 2000 Federal income tax return and claim the deductions set forth on the return. A Cameron & Rolling accountant conversed with petitioner's owners to determine that the depreciation and expenses related to the airplane2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 54">*57 could be deducted. Petitioner relied upon Cameron & Rolling to prepare the return, and Cameron & Rolling was aware of petitioner's reliance. It is clear from the record that petitioner reasonably relied in good faith on Cameron & Rolling. Consequently, we conclude that for the year in issue petitioner had reasonable cause and acted in good faith as to any underpayment resulting from the deductions in issue. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not liable for the penalty pursuant to
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for petitioner as to the 2000 penalty and for respondent as to the deficiencies.