- 34 -
stances, including the taxpayer's efforts to assess his or her
proper tax liability and the knowledge and experience of the
taxpayer. See sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
As we understand petitioners' position, they contend that
they are not liable for 1994 for the accuracy-related penalty
under section 6662(a) with respect to petitioners' underpayment
of tax for that year that is attributable to their failure to
report in their 1994 return long-term capital gain of $48,192 and
their erroneously claiming in that return a dependency exemption
for their daughter Holly McDaniel.8 Petitioners make no argument
with respect to that position in their opening brief. In their
reply brief, they assert:
The Respondent has taken the position that all the
adjustments made by the agent are the result of neg-
ligence of the Petitioners. Specific acts of negli-
gence have not been shown. Negligence penalties should
not be assessed against the Petitioners.
Petitioners, not respondent, have the burden of proving that
respondent's determinations in the notice, including the de-
terminations under section 6662, are erroneous. See Rule 142(a).
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have failed to
satisfy that burden. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's
determinations under section 6662(a) for 1994 with respect to
8 Petitioners concede respondent's determinations under
sec. 6662 with respect to the other items that result in
petitioners' underpayment for each of the years at issue.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011