- 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