- 585 -
"inadvertently" failed to address some adjustments, this omission
on his part was caused by respondent's representing "at the
conclusion of the trial that all issues upon which petitioners
bore the burden of proof had been addressed by petitioners
(subject to certain specifically identified exceptions)."
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Kanter is
liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a) because he, a
knowledgeable tax attorney, was negligent, and he failed to meet
his burden of proving that he acted reasonably or exercised due
care.
We agree with respondent. We first reject Kanter's
contention that he should somehow be "excused" from liability for
additions to tax under section 6653(a) with respect to those
adjustments he may have "inadvertently" failed to address because
of respondent's alleged statement near conclusion of the trial
that Kanter had "addressed all issues" upon which he had the
burden of proof. As previously discussed, we conclude that such
statement was not a waiver or concession by respondent of those
issues raised in the notices of deficiency. Furthermore, the
Court does not believe that Kanter was misled because the Court
twice advised his counsel that he was responsible for seeing that
Kanter had fully addressed all issues upon which Kanter bore the
burden of proof.
Page: Previous 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011