Nathan P. and Geraldine V. Morton - Page 36

                                       - 36 -                                         
             in Home Depot stock was settled, the section 6662 penalty                
             was not.                                                                 
                  Section 6662 imposes a penalty equal to 20 percent                  
             of any portion of an underpayment of tax attributable to                 
             negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, or to a                 
             substantial understatement of income tax.  Negligence is                 
             defined as "any failure to make a reasonable attempt to                  
             comply with the provisions of this title".  Sec. 6662(c).                
             Disregard is defined as "any careless, reckless, or                      
             intentional disregard."  Sec. 6662(c).  Petitioners                      
             bear the burden of proving that respondent's determina-                  
             tion of negligence or intentional disregard of rules or                  
             regulations is erroneous.  Rule 142(a); Forseth v.                       
             Commissioner, 85 T.C. 127, 166 (1985), affd. 845 F.2d 746                
             (7th Cir. 1988), affd. sub nom. Mahoney v. Commissioner,                 
             808 F.2d 1219 (6th Cir. 1987), affd. without published                   
             opinions sub nom. Woolridge v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 266                
             (11th Cir. 1986); affd. without published opinion sub                    
             nom. Bramblett v. Commissioner, 810 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.                   
             1987); affd. sub nom. Enrici v. Commissioner, 813 F.2d                   
             293 (9th Cir. 1987).                                                     
                  With regard to the deficiency arising from the SWI                  
             stock, petitioners point to the fact that petitioner                     
             engaged in "extensive discussions" with Dubin Clark                      
             regarding his employment with SWI and his purchase of SWI                




Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011