- 4 -
Respondent disallowed $602 of petitioner's claimed
automobile expenses. Again, petitioners failed to introduce any
evidence that they are entitled to a larger deduction for
automobile expenses than the amount allowed by respondent. We
hold for respondent on this issue.
Petitioner deducted $1,795 for utilities/telephone expenses,
$710 for meals/entertainment expenses, $6,846 for freight
expenses, and $1,979 for commissions in 1988. Petitioners
produced no evidence to substantiate their claimed expenditures.
Consequently, we uphold respondent's determinations as to the
disallowance of these expenses.
Respondent also determined that petitioners are liable for
an addition to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) for
1988. Section 6653(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax in the
amount of 5 percent of the underpayment of tax if any part of the
underpayment is due to negligence or intentional disregard of
rules or regulations. Negligence is the lack of due care or
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 have the burden of proof to show
that any underpayment was not due to negligence. Rule 142(a);
Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791-792 (1972). Based on
this record, we find that petitioners are liable for the addition
to tax for negligence for 1988.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011