- 5 -
legal fees that he paid in connection with the purchase of the
Florida house. On Schedule C of his 1991 return petitioner
deducted depreciation expense with respect to the house.
Petitioner prepared and filed Federal income tax returns for
the years in issue without consulting an accountant or other tax
professional.
We turn first to the applicability of the section 6662(b)(1)
penalty. We consider each agreed adjustment (except as indicated
supra note 2) to determine whether the resulting portion of the
underpayment is attributable to "Negligence or disregard of rules
or regulations" as provided in that section. "Negligence" for
this purpose includes "any failure to make a reasonable attempt
to comply with the provisions of * * * [the Internal Revenue
Code]", and "disregard" includes "any careless, reckless, or
intentional disregard". Sec. 6662(c). Respondent's
determination of an accuracy-related penalty is presumptively
correct, and petitioner bears the burden of proving the
determination wrong. Rule 142(a); Monahan v. Commissioner, 109
T.C. 235 (1997); Hitchins v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 711, 719
(1994); Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985); Bixby v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791-792 (1972). In deciding whether
the accuracy-related penalty for negligence applies, the test is
whether there was a lack of due care or a failure to act
prudently under the circumstances. Hitchins v. Commissioner,
supra. Thus, the taxpayer must show that he acted reasonably and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011