Ashenafi Getachew Mulu

United States Tax Court T.C. Summary Opinion 2023-2 ASHENAFI GETACHEW MULU, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 12975-21S. Filed January 25, 2023. ————— Temple Keith Fogg, Elizabeth W. Segovis, Alejandro Rodriguez (student), and Charlotte Schmidt (student), for petitioner. Erika B. Cormier, Xheni D. Gallagher, and Michael E. D’Anello, for respondent. SUMMARY OPINION LEYDEN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code 1 in effect when the Petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Served 01/25/23 2 The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 2 examined petitioner’s 2018 federal income tax return. The IRS issued a notice of deficiency dated February 2, 2021, and determined a deficiency of $11,688 and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $2,337.60 for 2018. Petitioner timely filed a Petition for redetermination pursuant to section 6213(a). After concessions, the sole issue for decision is whether for 2018 petitioner is liable for a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $1,212.20. The Court finds for respondent on this issue. Background Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The Stipulation of Facts and the accompanying Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference, except for paragraphs 30, 31, 32, and 33. 3 Petitioner resided in Massachusetts when he timely filed the Petition. I. Petitioner’s 2018 Tax Return Petitioner hired David Clerie to prepare his 2018 federal income tax return. Friends and family in the Ethiopian immigrant community, who were happy with the amounts of the refunds they received and how quickly they received them, recommended Mr. Clerie to petitioner. Mr. Clerie prepared petitioner’s tax returns for at least four years. Mr. Clerie referred to himself as “Dave, Tax Doctor.” Mr. Clerie did not have a preparer tax identification number (PTIN), 4 and the 2018 federal income tax return was electronically 2 The Court uses the term “Internal Revenue Service” or “IRS” to refer to administrative actions taken outside of these proceedings. The Court uses the term “respondent” to refer to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is the head of the IRS and is respondent in this case, and to refer to actions taken in connection with this case. 3Respondent objected to paragraphs 30, 31, 32, and 33, and the Court ruled that these paragraphs were inadmissible on the ground of relevancy under Rules 401 and 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 4 A PTIN is a required credential from anyone who prepares or assists in preparing federal tax returns for compensation. Treas. …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals