John Franklin Foust - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         

          that Cheyenne did not conduct any farming activities in 1989.               
          Petitioner has presented no evidence to explain or substantiate             
          the $11,503 loss.  In the absence of any evidence substantiating            
          or explaining petitioner’s entitlement to the loss, respondent’s            
          determination disallowing the loss is upheld.                               
          Issue 4:  The Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax                            
               Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax in the event a           
          taxpayer fails to timely file his tax return.  The addition to              
          tax applies unless the taxpayer establishes that his failure to             
          file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.                   
               With extensions, petitioner’s 1989 personal Federal income             
          tax return was due on October 15, 1990.  The parties stipulated             
          that the return was mailed on October 16, 1990; the return bears            
          a stamp indicating that the envelope was postmarked on that date.           
          At the trial, petitioner did not provide any explanation for his            
          delinquent filing.  Petitioner’s brief included some vague                  
          assertions about why the envelope was erroneously postmarked on             
          October 16, rather than October 15, but these assertions are not            
          supported by the record and they directly contradict a stipulated           
          fact.                                                                       
               Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence that the late            
          filing of his 1989 personal Federal income tax return was due to            
          reasonable cause and not willful neglect.  We uphold respondent’s           
          determination that petitioner is liable for the section                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011