Accuracy-Related Penalty Section 6662(a) and (b) (2) impose a 20% accuracy-related charges on any part of an underpayment due to a considerable understatement of tax. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. M. Blackwood, et ux. M. J and BLACKWOOD. WEIKLE BLACKWOOD, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Reference(s): Code Sec. 61; Code Sec.
104; Code Sec. 6662; Code Sec. Michael D. Weikle, for petitioners. Diana N. Wells, for respondent. 100,000 arrangements are excludable from gross income under the flush language of section 104(a); and (3) whether petitioners are responsible for the accuracy-related charges under section 6662(a) for substantial understatement of tax. A number of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
- Brand yourself
- A price portion covering the service consumption based on
- Management Analystix
- Production of efficient and fully documented code
At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in West Virginia. Before January 3, 2008, petitioner worked well for Siemens as a trainer designated to Siemens’ client, the Charleston Area INFIRMARY (medical center). Petitioner’s job responsibilities included training hospital personnel in the use of the Siemens-developed computer program for the assortment of patient information during the patient’s admission to the hospital.
The information gathered by the Siemens system would then be utilized by other medical staff when making decisions about the patient’s subsequent medical care at a healthcare facility. The Siemens system required medical center personnel to consult with the patient and simultaneously enter the patient’s responses to prompted questions. In December 2007 Following the admission of her son to a healthcare facility, petitioner observed a healthcare facility nurse taking her son’s health background without using the Siemens data access program. Having trained medical center personnel in the utilization of the Siemens program, petitioner was immediately aware that the hospital nurse didn’t ask all the relevant questions required by this program.
Following the discharge of her son from the hospital, petitioner used her Siemens usage of view her son’s electronically stored medical records. Upon review petitioner learned that the hospital nurse had input information regarding questions she failed to ask the petitioner’s boy during the admissions process. Petitioner reported her observation of the hospital nurse’s use of the Siemens system to her superiors at work and requested guidance as to how to report the hospital nurse’s actions.
Petitioner’s supervisor educated her that petitioner would be advised of the action she should take upon time for work from a previously planned holiday. Before January 3, 2008, petitioner experienced from depression. As a total consequence of her termination, petitioner’s melancholy relapsed, causing her to suffer symptoms such as sleeplessness, sleeping much too, migraines, nausea, throwing up, weight gain, acne, and pain in her back again, shoulder and neck. Petitioner resumed counseling sessions with her counselor, D. Lynn Lewis, who has a professional of arts degree and it is a certified professional counselor and a certified clinical social employee. Petitioner requested that her counsel, Michael D. Weikle, present her state of wrongful termination to Siemens.
Michael D. Weikle is petitioner’s dad. Petitioner’s counsel recommended Siemens’ counsel of petitioner’s intention to file a state for wrongful termination by sending to Siemens’ counsel a copy of his draft issue for their review. 100,000 as income on their joint Federal income tax return for 2008, nor do they disclose on the comeback that they considered the settlement payment to be nontaxable.