- 5 -
result from "willful neglect."3 United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S.
241, 245 (1985); Brittingham v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 373, 415
(1976), affd. on other grounds 598 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1979);
Electric & Neon, Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1324, 1342 (1971),
affd. without published opinion 496 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1974).
The term "reasonable cause" is not defined by section
6651(a)(1). However, section 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin.
Regs., gives some guidance. The pertinent part of that
regulation provides that, "If the taxpayer exercised ordinary
business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file
the return within the prescribed time, then the delay is due to a
reasonable cause." Although the regulation does not explain what
constitutes "ordinary business care and prudence", the Supreme
Court in United States v. Boyle, supra at 246 n.4, emphasized
that, at a minimum, it must mean an absence of fault:
Congress obviously intended to make absence of fault a
prerequisite to avoidance of the late-filing penalty.
* * * A taxpayer * * * must therefore prove that his
failure to file on time was the result neither of
carelessness, reckless indifference, nor intentional
failure. Thus, the Service's correlation of
"reasonable cause" with "ordinary business care and
prudence" is consistent with Congress' intent, and over
40 years of case law as well. That interpretation
merits deference. [Citations omitted.]
3In view of our ruling regarding reasonable cause, we need
not consider whether petitioner's failure to file was due to
"willful neglect".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011