Gregory Thompson v. Commissioner of IRS, No. 07-3917 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Federal Tax. Tax court did not abuse its discretion in determining that taxpayer had not shown reasonable probable cause warranting an exception to the accuracy-related penalty assessed in the notice of deficiency.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3917 ___________ Gregory Eugene Thompson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: February 25, 2009 Filed: March 2, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Gregory Thompson appeals the tax court s1 decision upholding a notice of deficiency (NOD) issued by the Internal Revenue Service for the 2004 tax year. Upon review, we hold that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Thompson had not shown reasonable cause warranting an exception to the accuracyrelated penalty assessed in the NOD. See Walter v. United States, 148 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 1998) (most important factor in determining whether there was reasonable cause for underpayment is extent of taxpayer s effort to assess proper tax liability); Caulfield v. Comm r, 33 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 1994) (decision not to 1 The Honorable Diane L. Kroupa, United States Tax Court Judge. waive accuracy-related penalty reviewed for abuse of discretion); Higbee v. Comm r, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001) (taxpayer bears burden of proof to justify grant of reasonable-cause exception to accuracy-related penalty). Thompson has waived the remaining tax issues that are before this court. See Chay-Valesquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (issues not meaningfully argued in opening brief are deemed waived). The decision of the tax court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
