- 11 -
to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the statute, and the
term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or intentional
disregard. Sec. 6662(c). Petitioner bears the burden of proving
that the negligence penalty is inapplicable. See Rule 142(a);
INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Welch v. Helvering, supra;
cf. Girsis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-244.
At trial, petitioner did not offer any evidence to suggest
that he was not negligent, nor did he argue that he should not be
held liable for the penalty. Cf. Girsis v. Commissioner, supra.
In any event, petitioner did not maintain any books or records
regarding the matters in issue. The negligence penalty may be
justified if the taxpayer fails to keep adequate records. See
Lysek v. Commissioner, 583 F.2d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 1978), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1975-293; Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 899, 916
(1989). Further, failure to maintain adequate records indicates
disregard of the rules and regulations requiring taxpayers to
maintain permanent records sufficient to establish their gross
income and deductions. See Crocker v. Commissioner, supra at
917. We therefore sustain respondent's determination on this
issue.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issues, as well
as petitioner's concession,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011