Tax Court In Brief | Remisovsky v. Comm'r | Reasonable Cause Exception To Additions To Tax

• Published date: 02 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Tax, Tax Authorities
• Law Firm: Freeman Law
• Author: Freeman Law

The Tax Court in Brief - August 29th - September 2nd, 2022

Freeman Law's 'The Tax Court in Brief' covers every substantive Tax Court opinion, providing a weekly brief of its decisions in clear, concise prose.

For a link to our podcast covering the Tax Court in Brief, download here or check out other episodes of The Freeman Law Project.

Tax Litigation: The Week of August 29th, 2022, through September 2nd, 2022

• Sparta Pink Property, LLC v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2022-88 | August 29, 2022 | Lauber, J. | Dkt. No 12114-20
• Pressman v. Comm'r, T.C. Summ. Op. 2022-15 | August 29, 2022 | Panuthos, S.T.J. | Dkt. No 16084-19S
• Domdom v. Comm'r, T.C. Summary Opinion 2022-17 | August 30, 2022 | Carluzzo, J. | Dkt. No 18270-17S
• Dern v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-90| August 30, 2022 | Vasquez, J. | Dkt. No. 7595-20

George Anton Remisovsky and Ellen Jones-Remisovsky v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2022-89| August 30, 2022 | Lauber, A. | Dkt. No. 11945-20L

Short Summary: Petitioners sought a hearing in response to CDP notices issued with respect to tax reported on their late-filed 2013 tax return and additions to tax under I.R.C. ' 6651(a)(1) and (a)(2). At the time the 2013 return was due, the husband was a practicing physician and the wife a retail manager. During the hearing, Petitioners expressed interest in a collection alternative and challenged their liability for the additions to tax based on reasonable cause. They pointed to the husband's history of functional alcoholism and depression (corroborated by a psychiatrist's letter), which they argued diminished his ability to comply with his financial and tax obligations. The settlement officer (SO) considered petitioners' reasonable cause claims and applicability of the government's 'first time' penalty abatement policy but determined that petitioners did not meet the requirements for relief. She offered them an installment plan (IA) but it was rejected. Because petitioners were not eligible for penalty abatement, declined the IA and sought no other collection alternative, the SO closed the case, sustaining the collection actions. Petitioners timely petitioned. At trial, petitioners contended that alcoholism and depression are recognized as 'diseases' but they offered no evidence concerning the severity of the husband's conditions or his inability to timely file or pay at relevant times. They also failed to show that the wife was unable to do so.

Key Issues and Primary Holdings:

Should the disputed additions to tax under...