Discussion:Foster v Commissioner TC Memo 2008-22

The current school of thought in my area is that the "qualifies for a new trade or business" refers to a regulatory qualification as in doctors, lawyers, CPA's, HAZMAT, etc, and not due to an arbitrary qualification imposed by an employer. Nor was an analysis of "before and after" job duties thought to be needed.

I also found it interesting that the Tax Court paid much attention to the occupation listed on the tax return, and that line doesn't get much interest by preparers or clients. (Well, I do get a chuckle whenever an "Ass. Manager" return crosses my desk)

Lastly, what do you guys make of the accuracy penalty. If she had only shown to court and claimed the preparer told her to do it, she would have been spared. Do you think the preparer would be liable for any preparer penelties in this case?

"The Court conducted the trial of this case in Boston, Mass., as petitioner requested. Petitioner did not attend the trial. Presumably, she still lived in California at the time of trial. As will be discussed infra , petitioner did not provide any testimony at trial. The record is thus limited to the stipulation of facts with attached exhibits, matters deemed admitted, Rule 90(c), and additional exhibits admitted in evidence at trial."

She didn't even attend the trial to offer rebuttal to the part about occupation. What choice did the Court have but to accept what was written on that line.