- 48 -
nor does it show what information petitioner may have provided to
Mr. McVeigh, or what advice Mr. McVeigh may have given peti-
tioner, regarding those remaining items. Accordingly, we find
that petitioner has failed to establish that any reliance by him
on Mr. McVeigh with respect to the remaining items was reasonable
and in good faith. Consequently, we sustain respondent's de-
terminations imposing on petitioner the accuracy-related penalty
on the portion of the underpayment for each of the years at issue
that is attributable to those items.
Negligence or Disregard of
the Rules or Regulations
Petitioner's Underreporting of the Gain
from the Sale of the Drawing in Question
In Schedule C of his 1989 return relating to art sales,
petitioner reported a gain of $99,000 from the sale of the
drawing in question. The parties agree that petitioner realized
a gain of $113,700 from the sale of that drawing. Although not
determined in the notice, respondent contends on brief that
petitioner's underreporting of the gain from the sale of the
drawing in question was due to negligence or disregard of rules
and regulations. This issue constitutes a new matter on which
respondent bears the burden of proof. Rule 142(a); Foster v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 34, 197 (1983), affd. in part and vacated
in part 756 F.2d 1430 (9th Cir. 1985).
The record does not establish what petitioner told Mr.
McVeigh about the sales price of the drawing in question, the
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011