- 11 -
and not due to willful neglect. Petitioners presented no
evidence to establish reasonable cause for the delinquent filing
of their returns. Although petitioner claimed that their return
preparer was supposed to have filed applications for extensions
to file, which he failed to do, the Court is skeptical of this
contention. For example, the 1989 return, which should have been
filed on or before April 16, 1990, was filed on June 11, 1992,
over 2 years beyond the due date. Petitioner did not testify as
to the date the return preparer was engaged to prepare
petitioners' returns. Since the 1989, 1990, and 1991 returns
bear almost identical signature dates, it is logical for the
Court to conclude that petitioners, in all probability, did not
engage the services of the return preparer until sometime in
1992, when the returns were signed. This would have been past
the due date for filing the returns. Petitioners have not
established reasonable cause for the late filing of their
returns. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011