Estate of Carolyn W. Holland, Deceased, Jack K. Holland, Lewis G. Holland, Sr., and Betty H. Kann, Executors - Page 60

                                        -60-                                          
          executors never intended to distribute, and which inured to the             
          benefit of the heirs.                                                       
               Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the                
          penalty for negligence or intentional disregard of the rules or             
          regulations pursuant to section 6662.  Petitioner asserts that it           
          was neither negligent nor intentionally disregarded the rules or            
          regulations.                                                                
          Section 6662 provides for the imposition of a penalty equal                 
          to 20 percent of the portion of an underpayment which is                    
          attributable to negligence or disregard of the rules or                     
          regulations.  Sec. 6662(a), (b)(1).  For purposes of the section,           
          the term "negligence" includes any failure to make a reasonable             
          attempt to comply with the Internal Revenue laws, a failure to              
          exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax           
          return, and a failure to keep adequate books and records or to              
          substantiate items properly.  Sec. 1.662-3(b)(1), Income Tax                
          Regs.  Negligence is defined as a lack of due care or failure to            
          do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under           
          the circumstances.  Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947                 
          (1985).  The term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or           
          intentional disregard of the rules or regulations.  Sec. 6662(c).           
               Just as with respondent's determination of deficiency, his             
          determination of negligence or intentional disregard of the rules           
          or regulations is prima facie correct with the burden of proof to           
          the contrary on petitioner.  Neely v. Commissioner, supra.                  




Page:  Previous  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011