IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 98-60600
Summary Calendar
____________________
SAM E SCOTT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States Tax Court
(21525-94)
_________________________________________________________________
June 3, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Taxpayer Sam Scott filed a petition in the tax court
challenging a deficiency determination and assessment of
penalties by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relating to
Scott’s 1991 income tax return. Specifically, the IRS: (1)
denied Scott a $121,500 loss deduction due to his withdrawal from
his law firm partnership, (2) determined that Scott received a
taxable distribution of $85,455 from his law firm’s 401(k) plan
and assessed a ten percent early-withdrawal penalty, (3) denied
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Scott a $33,943 investment interest deduction, (4) assessed a
penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file,
and (5) assessed an accuracy-related penalty under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6662. Scott argued to the tax court that: (1) the $121,500
loss represents the value of accounts received, work in progress,
and other assets that he “left on the table” when he departed the
law firm, (2) he was not properly notified of the taxable
distribution from his account with the firm’s 401(k) plan, (3)
his interest deduction should be allowed under 26 U.S.C. § 163 as
interest incurred in the conduct of a trade or business, (4) he
timely filed his 1991 return following two extensions granted by
the IRS, and (5) he had reasonable cause for understating his tax
obligation on his 1991 return. In a thorough and well-reasoned
opinion, the tax court considered and rejected each of these
arguments, ordered that there is a deficiency in Scott’s tax due
in the amount of $73,053, and assessed $26,924 in penalties. See
Scott v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.M. (CCH) 1157, 1157-64 (1997).
On appeal, Scott again asserts that his 1991 income tax
return is accurate and that he should not be ordered to pay
either a deficiency or penalty, relying on the same arguments
that he made to, and were rejected by, the tax court. We have
carefully reviewed these arguments, the record, and relevant
legal principles, and we find no reason to set out anew what the
tax court has already thoroughly explained. We therefore AFFIRM
the judgment of the tax court.
2