Jane C. Barber - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          "conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference."                  
          United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); see also                  
          Educational Fund of Elec. Indus. v. United States, 426 F.2d 1053,           
          1058 (2d Cir. 1970).  Whether a failure to file timely is due to            
          reasonable cause and not willful neglect is a question of fact.2            
          United States v. Boyle, supra at 249 n.8; Mayer's Estate v.                 
          Commissioner, 351 F.2d 617 (2d Cir. 1965), affg. 43 T.C. 403                
          (1964); Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 899, 913 (1989).                   
               Petitioner contends that her failure to file timely was due            
          to reasonable cause because of (1) the emotional trauma she                 
          experienced as a result of the arrests of her husband, his                  
          trials, and the attendant publicity, and (2) her belief that                
          records needed for the preparation of the return were unavailable           
          because they had been taken during the August 1992 search of the            
          offices of Mr. Barber and their accountant.  Mr. Barber also                
          suggested at trial that the return was not filed because they               
          could not afford to have necessary reports prepared.  Respondent            
          contends that petitioner was not incapacitated by that trauma,              

          2   As our decision in the instant case has been made without               
          resort to the burden of proof, but instead rests on the evidence            
          submitted, the location of the burden of proof is immaterial.               
          Kean v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 575, 601 n.40 (1988).  Accordingly,           
          we do not need to explore the extent to which respondent bears              
          the burden of proof by reason of having amended her answer to               
          increase the amount of the addition to tax sought from                      
          petitioner.  Rule 142(a); see Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner,             
          66 T.C. 743, 757-758 (1976), affd. in part and revd. in part on             
          other grounds 571 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1978).                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011