Winthrop B. and Sally L. Orgera - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
               Finally, we consider whether petitioners are liable for an             
          accuracy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a) and           
          (b)(1).  Section 6662(a) provides for a 20-percent penalty for              
          the portion of the underpayment of tax attributable to one of the           
          categories listed in section 6662(b).  Section 6662(b)(1)                   
          provides that negligence or disregard of rules or regulations is            
          a reason for imposition of the 20-percent addition.                         
               Negligence includes a lack of due care or a failure to do              
          what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under              
          the circumstances.  Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947                 
          (1985).  Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's           
          determination of negligence is erroneous.  Rule 142(a); Bixby v.            
          Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791-792 (1972).                                  
               Petitioner, at least with respect to 1990, was erroneously             
          under the impression that his credit union accounts were covered            
          under the IRA account that he opened.  During the confusion of              
          the takeover by Delta Airlines and the closing of the pilots'               
          pension Plan that had operated while petitioner worked for                  
          Western, petitioner executed IRA papers, and, for the most part,            
          deposited his funds in the credit union that was affiliated with            
          the organization and the individual (Mr. Supinski) who assisted             
          petitioner in the opening of petitioner's IRA account.  Taking              
          into consideration petitioner's lack of specialized knowledge               
          about IRA's and tax law involving pension plans, and, considering           
          the circumstances in this case, it was reasonable for petitioner            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011