Robert J. Geary - Page 11




                                        - 11 -                                         
               Though petitioner contends that he received erroneous tax               
          advice from his tax preparer, petitioner did not testify to such             
          advice or call his tax preparer as a witness at trial.  This                 
          Court can infer that testimony which was not produced at trial               
          would not have been favorable to a taxpayer.  See Wichita                    
          Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946),             
          affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).  Additionally, there is no              
          evidence in the record supporting petitioner's contention                    
          regarding erroneous expert advice.                                           
               On the basis of the record, we hold that petitioner did not             
          comply with the requirements of section 162, and failed to                   
          exercise the due care of a reasonable and ordinarily prudent                 
          person.  We therefore hold that petitioner is liable for an                  
          accuracy-related penalty for the 1993 tax year.                              
               To reflect the foregoing,                                               
                                                   Decision will be entered            
                                              for respondent.                          


















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Last modified: May 25, 2011