Babu v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2020-121

On August 17, 2020, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Babu v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2020-121). The sole issue before the court in Babu v. Commissioner was whether the petitioner was liable for the substantial understatement accuracy-related penalty under IRC § 6662(a), IRC § 6662(b)(2), IRC § 6662(d)(2). Background to Babu v. Commissioner After earning a B.A. degree in finance, Mr. Babu attended law school at the University of Baltimore, graduating in 2005. During law school he took courses in tax law, participated in a tax clinic that assisted low-income taxpayers, and finished “with a pretty good understanding of tax.” Not only that, he worked for a tax mill during law school, and general counsel for five years after graduation.  The petitioner held franchises for 19 separate tax mill locations. Business was good, until the DOJ dropped the hammer on the tax mill and its…

0 Comments

Emanouil v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2020-120

On August 17, 2020, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Emanouil v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2020-120). The primary issues before the court in Emanouil v. Commissioner were (1) whether the petitioners complied with the qualified appraisal requirements of IRC § 170(f)(11)(C); (2) whether the petitioners contributions were part of a quid pro quo exchange rather than a charitable gift; (3) what the fair market values were of the properties that the petitioners contributed; and (4) whether accuracy-related penalties apply. Background to Emanouil v. Commissioner The petitioner-husband (PH) was a real estate developer. He purchased 197 acres of undeveloped property and attempted to develop the property. PH obtained permission to build on 104 acres, but he was required to concede and mitigate certain items.  PH donated 16 acres to the town, having had the 16 acres appraised for $1.5m.  Three months later he received final approval,…

0 Comments