Hartley v. Commissioner
Harry Hartley and Carey Hartley, Husband and Wife v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OP FACT AND OPINION. Black, Judge: The Commissioner determined that petitioners failed to file a declaration of estimated tax for 1949 and, for both that year and 1950, substantially underestimated their estimated taxes. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that for 1949 petitioners were liable for estimated tax penalties under sections 294 (d) (1) (A) 1 and 294 (d) (2) 1 in the total amount of $2,328.95, and that for 1950 they were liable for the section 294 (d) (2) penalty in the amount of $3,012.54.
In our report in this case filed November 24, 1954, and appearing in 23 T. C. 353 , we made the following findings of fact relative to those estimated tax issues:
Petitioners failed to file declarations of.estimated tax for the years in issue. Those failures were not due to reasonable cause but were due to willful neglect.
Thereafter, our opinion concludes that for both 1949 and 1950 petitioners were liable for the section 294 (d) (1) (A) penalty (failure to file declaration), as well as the 294 (d) (2) penalty (substantial underestimation).
Although the aforementioned report is correct as regards 1949, it is incorrect as regards 1950. This has been called to our attention by the December 21, 1954, filing of “Petitioners[’] Exceptions to the Court’s Finding oe Facts, and Requests eoe Amended Findings.”
Petitioners did timely file a declaration of estimated tax for 1950 in which they reported (and in fact paid) an estimated tax of $2,500 for that year. They reported net income of $41,339.48. in their joint return for 1950 and paid a tax of $12,959.08 thereon.
The Commissioner in his determination of the section 294 (d) (2) penalty for 1950 determined as follows:
Tax liability_$52, 709. 08
Estimated tax declared_ 2, 500. 00
Underestimate_$50,209. 08
Penalty, 6 per cent of $50, 209. 08_,_ $8, 012. 54
It is evident from our findings and opinion on the inventory issue for 1950 that petitioners’ correct net income for that year was substantially in excess of that reported on their return.
We conclude from the above that for 1950 petitioners are not, and in fact the Commissioner did not determine they were, liable for the section 294 (d) (1) (A) penalty for failure to timely file a declaration of estimated tax. However, they are, as determined by the Commissioner, liable for the section 294 (d) (2) penalty for 1950 since their estimated tax of $2,500 was less than 80 per cent of their correct tax for that year. 2 The amount of that penalty will be determined, along with the other items involved in this case, in the Rule 50 computation.
Petitioners’ request for amended findings of fact in all other réspects is hereby denied.
Internal Revenue Code oil 1980.
As mentioned in our original report “reasonable cause” is no defense to the Imposition of the section 294 (d) (2) penalty for substantial underestimation. B. R. Smith, 20 T. C. 668 .
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
Harry Hartley and Carey Hartley, Husband and Wife, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Hartley v. Commissioner
Docket No. 47967 United States Tax Court 23 T.C. 564 ; 1954 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 1 ; December 31, 1954 , Filed *1 Black, Judge .
BLACK *564 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION.
The Commissioner determined that petitioners failed to file a declaration of estimated tax for 1949 and, for both that year and 1950, substantially underestimated their estimated taxes. Consequently, the Commissioner determined that for 1949 petitioners were liable for estimated tax penalties under sections 294 (d) (1) (A) 1 and 294 (d) (2) 1 in the total amount of $ 2,328.95, and that for 1950 they were liable for the section 294 (d) (2) penalty in the amount of $ 3,012.54.
In our report in this case filed November 24, 1954, and appearing in 23 T. C. 353 , we made the following findings of fact relative to those estimated tax issues:
Petitioners failed to file declarations of estimated tax for the years in issue. Those failures were not due to reasonable cause but were due to willful neglect.
Thereafter, our opinion concludes that for both 1949 and 1950 petitioners were *2 liable for the section 294 (d) (1) (A) penalty (failure to *565 file declaration), as well as the 294 (d) (2) penalty (substantial underestimation).
Although the aforementioned report is correct as regards 1949, it is incorrect as regards 1950. This has been called to our attention by the December 21, 1954, filing of "Petitioners['] Exceptions to the Court's Finding of Facts, and Requests for Amended Findings."
Petitioners did timely file a declaration of estimated tax for 1950 in which they reported (and in fact paid) an estimated tax of $ 2,500 for that year. They reported net income of $ 41,339.48 in their joint return for 1950 and paid a tax of $ 12,959.08 thereon.
The Commissioner in his determination of the section 294 (d) (2) penalty for 1950 determined as follows: Tax liability $ 52,709.08 Estimated tax declared 2,500.00 Underestimate $ 50,209.08 Penalty, 6 per cent of $ 50,209.08 $ 3,012.54
It is evident from our findings and opinion on the inventory issue for 1950 that petitioners' correct net income for that year was substantially in excess of that reported on their return.
We conclude from the above that for 1950 petitioners are not, and in fact *3 the Commissioner did not determine they were, liable for the section 294 (d) (1) (A) penalty for failure to timely file a declaration of estimated tax. However, they are, as determined by the Commissioner, liable for the section 294 (d) (2) penalty for 1950 since their estimated tax of $ 2,500 was less than 80 per cent of their correct tax for that year. 2 The amount of that penalty will be determined, along with the other items involved in this case, in the Rule 50 computation.
Petitioners' request for amended findings of fact in all other respects is hereby denied.
Footnotes
1. Internal Revenue Code of 1939. ↩
2. As mentioned in our original report "reasonable cause" is no defense to the imposition of the section 294 (d) (2) penalty for substantial underestimation. H. R. Smith , 20 T. C. 663 ↩ .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.