Attorney-at-Law

STACKED

In Uncategorized on 09/16/2019 at 22:49

Ruby Chico isn’t stacked, despite the unreported income in the deficiency, and fraud chops visited upon her husband Raymond, and ex-Ch J Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton will tell you why in Raymond Chico and Ruby Chico, 2019 T. C. Memo. 123, filed 9/16/19.

Ray was a tax preparer who went to pot, selling marijuana cigarette holders of his own design (fetchingly called “doobtubes”) and running a pottery. The problem was he wasn’t declaring income from these operations, and wasn’t keeping good records.

Ray gets the Section 6663 fraud chops.

“Respondent has not asserted fraud penalties against Ms. Chico but alleges that she is liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for each year at issue.

“The accuracy-related penalty cannot be imposed on one spouse where the other spouse is liable for the fraud penalty, as this would lead to impermissible stacking of penalties. See sec. 6662(b); Said v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-148. Because Mr. Chico is liable for the fraud penalty for each underpayment, Ms. Chico is not liable for the accuracy-related penalties.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 123, at p. 49.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: