- 19 - care, and it failed to do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would have done under the circumstances. Petitioner knew it was required to file timely a Federal income tax return for each year in issue, but it neglected to do so for its 1989 taxable year. Given the fact that taxpayers have a statutory duty to file timely income tax returns, we believe that a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would have complied with the statutory duty to file timely such a return. We also believe that breach of this duty is evidence of negligence. Condor Intl., Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 203, 225 (1992), affd. in part, revd. in part 78 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1996); Emmons v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 342, 349 (1989), affd. 898 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1990). The fact that petitioner was negligent in the instant case is also supported by the fact that petitioner erroneously claimed deductions for the interest expenses and its shareholder’s legal fees. See Condor Intl., Inc., v. Commissioner, supra at 225; Emmons v. Commissioner, supra at 349. We sustain respondent on this issue. We have considered all of petitioner's arguments for contrary holdings and, to the extent not addressed above, find them to be without merit. To reflect concessions by respondent, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: May 25, 2011