MICHAEL AND SHIRLEY R. ANSOORIAN - DECISION - Tax Appeals Tribunal - Redetermination for 1984 Personal Income Tax

Sep 19, 2026

Decision of the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal regarding the petition of Michael and Shirley R. Ansoorian for redetermination or refund of 1984 personal income tax under Article 22. The issue addressed is whether petitioners are liable for a penalty under Tax Law § 685(c) for underestimation of New York State personal income tax. Petitioners contested the assessment and argued for allowance of deferred employee business (travel/automobile) expenses tied to alleged employer and federal “blacklisting,” but the Tribunal affirmed the Administrative Law Judge.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time2 min

AccessFree to download

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are liable for a penalty under Tax Law § 685(c)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Income reported and tax withheld

Notice and demand for payment and asserted penalty

Petitioners’ protest and asserted employee business expenses

OPINION

Administrative Law Judge determination and burden of proof

Tribunal review and affirmation

STATE OF NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL In the Matter of the Petition : of : MICHAEL AND SHIRLEY R. ANSOORIAN : DECISION for Redetermination of a Deficiency or for Refund of : Personal Income Tax under Article 22 of the Tax Law for the Year 1984. : ________________________________________________ Petitioners, Michael and Shirley R. Ansoorian, 18 Helena Avenue, Larchmont, New York 10538, filed an exception to the determination of the Administrative Law Judge issued on October 12, 1989 with respect to their petition for redetermination of a deficiency or for refund of personal income tax under Article 22 of the Tax Law for the year 1984 (File No. 804825) . Petitioners appeared by Michael Ansoorian. The Division of Taxation appeared by William F. Collins, Esq. (Angelo A. Scopellito, Esq., of counsel) . Petitioners did not file a brief on exception. The Division submitted a letter in lieu of a brief. Request for oral argument was denied. After reviewing the entire record in this matter, the Tax Appeals Tribunal renders the following decision. ISSUE Whether petitioners are liable for a penalty under Tax Law § 685(c) for underestimation of New York State personal income tax. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the facts as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and such facts are stated below. Petitioners, Michael and Shirley R. Ansoorian, filed a joint New York State Resident Income Tax Return and a City of Yonkers Nonresident Earnings Tax Return for the year 1984. Petitioners reported $41,680 . 80 in wage and salary income and $13,835 .16 in interest income. -2- The total of New York State personal income tax and City of Yonkers nonresident earnings tax was $5,222 .09 with $3,144 .48 having been withheld from wages, leaving a balance due of $2,077 .61. Petitioners' Form IT-250, Maximum Tax on Personal Service Income, for the year 1984 was attached to the income tax return. No amount was included on the form for employee business expenses. Instead, an asterisk was placed in the space left for that amount, with ahandwrittennotation referring to it stating: "Blacklist expenses being deferred to an appropriate time." Attached to petitioners' income tax return was a wage and tax statement for the year 1984 issued to petitioner Michael Ansoorian by Loral Corporation, Electronics Division, 999 Central Park Avenue, Yonkers, New York. The statement showed wage and salary income of $41,680 .80 with State income tax withheld of $3,144 .48. On April 1, 1987, the Division of Taxation issued a Notice and Demand for Payment of Income Tax Due for the year 1984 to petitioners, asserting a penalty of $57.66 under Tax Law § 685(c) for underestimation of State income tax. The Division of Taxation's answer to the petition alleged that the penalty was based on petitioners' failure to file and pay estimated tax on their 1984 interest income. Petitioners timely protested the notice and demand. However, the petition did not refer to the interest income issue but instead alleged that certain deductions for employee business expenses for the year 1984 should be allowed for the purpose of redetermining petitioners' tax liability. These expenses did not appear on the income tax return. Petitioners asserted, in both the petition and at the hearing, that these expenses had been incurred because of actions which had been intentionally orchestrated by the employer and the Federal government in order to punish Mr. Ansoorian for his alleged "whistle blowing" activities with respect to waste in the defense industry. Petitioners claim that the employee business expenses consist of unspecified automobile expenses resulting from Mr. Ansoorian's transfer from Loral's Yonkers plant to its Bronx plant. Petitioners argue that the Federal government "blacklisted" Mr. Ansoorian and that -3- the transfer was effected solely for the purpose of harassing and financially incapacitating Mr. Ansoorian. OPINION In the determination below the Ad

FAQs

What is the central issue in this decision?

Whether the petitioners are liable for a penalty under Tax Law § 685(c) due to underestimation of New York State personal income tax.

What penalty does the Division of Taxation assert?

A penalty of $57.66 under Tax Law § 685(c) for underestimation, based on the petitioners’ failure to file and pay estimated tax on their 1984 interest income.

Why did the petitioners challenge the penalty and tax liability?

They argued that deductions for employee business expenses for 1984 should be allowed and claimed the expenses were linked to an alleged employer and federal “blacklisting” connected to whistleblowing activities.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Margaret