- 15 -
income directly and made payments pursuant to the Temporary and
Final Orders. Petitioner received 100 percent of the AT&T
retirement benefits during the years in issue and must report the
full amount unless otherwise excluded. Sec. 61(a). There is no
basis for exclusion. Rule 142(a).
Petitioner's argument that Colorado is a community property
State is incorrect. In re Marriage of Ellis, 36 Colo. App. 234
(1975), affd. 191 Colo. 317 (1976), 538 P.2d 1347 and 552 P.2d
506. Petitioner is not entitled to reduce his AT&T retirement
income by the one-half amount ultimately awarded to Ms. Petrie.
Cook v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 512, 518-19 (1983), affd. without
published opinion 742 F.2d 1431 (2d Cir. 1984). Accordingly,
respondent is sustained on this issue.
The final issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable
for the addition to tax imposed pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)
for failure to file a timely 1990 return. Section 6651(a)(1)
imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return,
unless the taxpayer establishes: (1) The failure did not result
from "willful neglect"; and (2) the failure was "due to
reasonable cause". "Willful neglect" has been interpreted to
mean a conscious, intentional failure, or reckless indifference.
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245-246 (1985).
"Reasonable cause" requires the taxpayer to demonstrate that he
exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nonetheless
unable to file a return within the prescribed time. United
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011