- NEXTRECORD -
neglect. The taxpayer bears the burden of showing that the
Commissioner's determination is erroneous and that the failure to
timely file is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful
neglect. Rule 142(a); Abramo v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 154, 163
(1982).
There is no question that petitioners failed to file their
1990 income tax return within the period prescribed by law.
Their return for that year was due on or before April 15, 1991.5
Sec. 6072(a). However, they failed to file a return until June
10, 1991. Accordingly, petitioners are liable for the addition
to tax under section 6651(a)(1) unless they can show that their
failure to timely file was due to reasonable cause and not due to
willful neglect. Estate of DiRezza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 19,
32-33 (1982).
A failure to file is due to "reasonable cause" if the
taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence but,
nevertheless, failed to file the return within the period
prescribed by law. Estate of Paxton v. Commissioner, 86 T.C.
785, 819 (1986); sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
The term "willful neglect" contemplates a conscious, intentional
failure to file or a reckless indifference to the obligation to
file. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985). Whether
5 Petitioners do not contend that they requested an
extension of time to file their 1990 income tax return, and there
is no evidence in the record suggesting that they did do so. See
sec. 6081(a); sec. 1.6081-1, Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011