1) Refer to Cox v. Commissioner and Larsen v. Commissioner These two cases involve tax returns that were audited because they were so blatantly screwed up to begin with. But even though both taxpayers ended up having to pay more tax, only one got stuck with the 6662 20% accuracy-related penalty. Compare and contrast these two taxpayers behavior and explain why, as to the penalty asserted by the IRS, one successfully defended against it while the other failed.

2) Youve learned in this course that the IRS views large charitable contribution deductions as prima facie suspicious. So when a tax return client just hands you a conclusory list of cash (or especially noncash) contribution totals for the year, and those totals seem high relative to the clients income level, how should you react???

Actually, lets consider that question in the context of a more specific scenario. Remember Paul and Anita Tucker, the taxpayers who claimed that they had giv-en almost $20,000 to their church? Although we werent told their income level, we do recognize that this wasnt a negligible amount of money.*** Consult SSTS No. 3 and discuss.

*** The tax year involved in Tucker was 2002. Their contribution, stated in 2020 dollars, would be almost $29,000

plzzz ans asap....