Kim Beauchamp - Page 26

                                       - 26 -                                         

          to tax for negligence.  See Lysek v. Commissioner, 583 F.2d 1088,           
          1094 (9th Cir. 1978), affg. T.C. Memo. 1975-293; Crocker v.                 
          Commissioner, supra at 917.  Failure to maintain adequate records           
          also indicates disregard of the rules or regulations that require           
          a taxpayer to keep permanent records sufficient to establish,               
          inter alia, the taxpayer's gross income and deductions.  See                
          Crocker v. Commissioner, supra at 917.                                      
               We have found that petitioner failed to keep or maintain               
          adequate records.  We conclude that petitioner is liable for an             
          addition to tax due to negligence pursuant to section 6653(a)(1)            
          for 1988, and for the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to                  
          section 6662(a) for 1989 and 1990 for the part of the                       
          underpayments that we have not found to be attributable to                  
          fraud.10                                                                    
          Statute of Limitations for 1989                                             
               Petitioner argues that the deficiency and penalty for 1989             
          are barred by the statute of limitations because respondent has             
          not proven that petitioner's actions were fraudulent.                       
               In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent            
          to evade tax, the tax may be assessed at any time.  Sec.                    


               10  We note that petitioner concedes that he is liable for             
          the addition to tax for negligence for 1988 and the accuracy-               
          related penalty for 1990 regarding Schedule C items in the                  
          amounts of $35,422 and $47,109, respectively.  We also note that            
          petitioner did not argue on brief that he is not liable for the             
          addition to tax for negligence and the accuracy-related penalty             
          regarding his "real estate COGS".                                           



Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011