Stephen D. Pahl and Louise A. Pahl - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          v. Commissioner, 886 F.2d 1237, 1238 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. 89              
          T.C. 1063 (1987); Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner,            
          6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).              
          We find that petitioner omitted the automobile allowance, in the            
          amount of $6,500, from the petitioners’ 1990 return, and we                 
          sustain respondent’s determination of a deficiency to the extent            
          that it relates to such omission.                                           
          IV.  Negligence                                                             
               Section 6662 provides for an accuracy-related penalty in the           
          amount of 20 percent of the portion of any underpayment                     
          attributable to, among other things, negligence or intentional              
          disregard of rules or regulations.  Respondent determined a                 
          section 6662 penalty against petitioners for their negligence in            
          omitting from gross income the nonemployee compensation discussed           
          above.  Negligence has been defined as the failure to exercise              
          the due care of a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person under            
          like circumstances.  Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947                
          (1985).  In the petition, petitioners assign error to                       
          respondent’s determination of a section 6662 penalty.  However,             
          petitioners do not aver any specific facts in support of their              
          assignment of error.  On brief, petitioners propose no findings             
          of fact specifically relating to the penalty, nor do they set               
          forth any arguments with regard thereto.  We assume that, in                
          defense to respondent’s determination of a penalty, petitioners             
          rely exclusively on the assumption that we shall determine no               




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011