Barry D. and Suzanne B. Whalley - Page 47

                                       - 47 -                                         
          Income Tax Regs.  The term "disregard" includes any careless,               
          reckless, or intentional disregard of rules or regulations.  Sec.           
          6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.                              
               Section 6664(c)(1), however, provides that the penalty under           
          section 6662(a) shall not apply to any portion of an underpayment           
          if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for the taxpayer's           
          position with respect to that portion and that the taxpayer acted           
          in good faith with respect to that portion.  The determination of           
          whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith            
          within the meaning of section 6664(c)(1) is made on a case-by-              
          case basis, taking into account all the pertinent facts and                 
          circumstances.  Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.                       
               Respondent's determination of negligence is presumed to be             
          correct, and petitioners bear the burden of proving that the                
          accuracy-related penalty does not apply.  Rule 142(a); Welch v.             
          Helvering, 290 U.S. at 115.                                                 
              Petitioners have not presented evidence to establish that              
          there was reasonable cause for their position with respect to the           
          underpayments of tax, nor that they acted in good faith with                
          respect to such underpayments.  At first glance, petitioners                
          appear to have put their records together very well.  However,              
          careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence presented and                  
          petitioner's trial testimony proves this assumption wrong.  We              
          found numerous instances where petitioners took multiple                    
          deductions for the same item, claimed deductions for items that             




Page:  Previous  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011