- 45 -
THE COURT: When, if at all, did you intend to
provide the Court with a copy of the return you claimed
to have filed on August 15, 1988?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I will go to my records
and make a copy of that and bring that in tomorrow. I
apologize for the confusion. When we were audited and
that copy was first produced for the convenience of the
auditor and then apparently passed in the
administrative file and on up, it now appears that we
should have provided a copy of the initial filing. We
apologize for not doing that.
Petitioners were given an opportunity to produce any retained
copy, or other evidence, of an earlier filed 1987 tax return.
They did not produce any such evidence.
We do not believe Laney’s testimony that petitioners sent to
respondent a tax return for their 1987 liability together with
their August 15, 1988, request for further extension. We do not
believe that petitioners sent to respondent any tax return for
their 1987 liability before they sent the tax return with the May
5, 1989, signature dates, which respondent filed on May 11, 1989.
We have so found.
Thus, petitioners’ tax return was filed almost 7 months
after the October 17, 1988, extended due date. Under section
6651(a)(1), this results in an addition to tax of 25 percent of
the amount of petitioners’ tax liability, “unless it is shown
that such failure [to file timely] is due to reasonable cause and
not due to willful neglect”.
Petitioners contend, and Laney testified, that they received
from respondent a notice that their August 15, 1988, request for
further extension was granted for “maximum time allowed”, and
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011