- 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