John Pryor Green - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          neglect.  Sec. 6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle,                
          469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); In re Stanford, 979 F.2d 1511, 1512               
          (11th Cir. 1992).  A failure to file a Federal income tax return            
          is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary               
          business care and prudence and, nevertheless, was unable to file            
          the return within the prescribed time.  In re Stanford, supra at            
          1514; sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Willful                
          neglect means a conscious, intentional failure or reckless                  
          indifference.  United States v. Boyle, supra at 245.                        
               As we understand petitioner’s argument, he did not file                
          income tax returns due to an absence of forms pertaining to his             
          situation.  Petitioner testified that he did not want to swear              
          under oath that his return was correct because he would be                  
          committing perjury by stating that he was an independent                    
          contractor.  We find this argument unpersuasive.  Because                   
          petitioner has failed to prove that his failure to file was due             
          to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, we sustain              
          respondent on this issue.                                                   
          4.  Additions to Tax Under Section 6654                                     
               Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6654            
          for each year in issue asserting that petitioner failed to pay              
          estimated tax.  This addition to tax is mandatory unless                    
          petitioner proves that he has met one of the exceptions contained           
          in section 6654.  In re Stanford, supra at 1514; Recklitis v.               






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011