Marvin W. and Kathryn A. McPike - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          they intended to profit from their investment.6  Thus, we do not            
          find Heasley controlling in the instant case.                               
               Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination with                
          respect to the additions to tax for negligence insofar as it                
          pertains to the GD&L container leasing investment.7                         
          Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax for Delinquency                          
               Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to           
          file a tax return or pay any tax by the applicable due date,                
          unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause             
          and not willful neglect.  United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241,             
          246 (1985).  Petitioners bear the burden of proving that their              
          failure to file a timely return was due to reasonable cause and             
          not willful neglect.  Neubecker v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 577, 586           
          (1975).                                                                     
               Generally, individuals who compute their taxes on a calendar           
          year basis must file their Federal income tax return by the 15th            
          day of April following the close of the taxable year.  Sec.                 


          6         There is ample evidence to suggest that petitioners               
          invested in the container leasing program primarily to reduce               
          their Federal tax liability.  Petitioner's testimony emphasized             
          his desire to reduce their income tax liability through                     
          investments.  In addition, his review of the promotional                    
          materials focused on the tax benefits which could be obtained by            
          investing in the container program.  Although Mrs. McPike                   
          suggested that petitioners had a profit motive, we think that               
          petitioners invested in the container program for its tax                   
          benefits, and any profit motive was incidental.                             
          7         We emphasize again that, in our judgment, respondent              
          has conceded there is no negligence with respect to the claimed             
          losses of the Winthrop Trust, and this should be reflected in the           
          Rule 155 computations.                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011