- 17 - on brief.9 Accordingly, to the extent that respondent has prevailed on the underlying issues, her corresponding determination of the applicable penalties is sustained. To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties, Decisions will be entered under Rule 155. 9 Petitioners did, however, attach a document to their posttrial reply brief purporting to be an audit notification letter sent from an Internal Revenue Service agent to Moore on Nov. 23, 1992. Presumably, petitioners intend this document to exculpate Moore from the negligence penalty for 1990 by establishing that Moore filed his amended 1990 return reporting the additional $65,000 in bonus income prior to being informed by respondent that his return was under audit. The document attached to petitioner's posttrial reply brief, however, was not introduced at trial and, therefore, is not part of the record in this case. Rule 143(b). Additionally, we note that the parties have stipulated that Moore filed his amended 1990 return after respondent's examination of FAMC's returns had commenced. Based on our review of the record in this case, and petitioners' failure to address the negligence issue at trial or on brief, we conclude that petitioners have not carried their burden of proof and, accordingly, are liable for the accuracy-related penalties under sec. 6662(a) pertaining to the conceded deficiencies.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: May 25, 2011