Otelio S. Randall - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause for                
          purposes of section 6651 if the taxpayer exercised ordinary                 
          business care and prudence and nevertheless was unable to file              
          the return within the prescribed time.  Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1),              
          Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see McMahan v. Commissioner, 114 F.3d               
          366, 368 (2d Cir. 1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-547.  Willful                
          neglect is defined for purposes of section 6651 as a conscious,             
          intentional failure or reckless indifference.  United States v.             
          Boyle, supra at 245.                                                        
               As we understand it,4 petitioner contends that he did not              
          file timely his returns for 1991 and 1992 because he relied on              
          Mr. Todar who advised him not to file those returns until all the           
          information relating to deductions that he could claim with                 
          respect to his wife's catering activities was available.  In                
          essence, it is petitioner's position that he should be excused              
          from the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) because he was           
          acting on what he believed to be his accountant's advice in not             
          timely filing the returns in question.                                      
               Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we            
          find that petitioner did not exercise ordinary business care and            
          prudence in not timely filing his 1991 and 1992 returns.  Prior             

          4  Petitioner submitted no trial memorandum in this case as                 
          required by the Court's standing pretrial order.  Nor did peti-             
          tioner submit post-trial briefs as directed by the Court at the             
          conclusion of the trial.  We glean petitioner's position in this            
          case from the testimony of Mr. Todar, the only witness presented            
          at trial by petitioner.                                                     




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011