- 25 -
(1985). In the petition, petitioners assign error to respondent’s
determination of section 6662 penalties. However, petitioners do
not aver any specific facts in support of their assignment of
error. In their opening brief, petitioners recognize that
respondent determined section 6662 penalties, but they propose no
findings of fact specifically relating to that issue, nor do they
make any argument with respect to the issue. In response to
respondent’s opening brief, petitioners argue only that they
maintained and produced adequate records of the Schedule F
activity. Petitioners bear the burden of proving that they were
not negligent or that they had reasonable cause for the
underpayment and that they acted in good faith. See sec.
6664(c)(1); Rule 142(a). We assume that, in defense to
respondent’s determination of a penalty, petitioners rely
principally on the assumption that we shall determine no
deficiency on account of our finding that the Schedule F activity
was engaged in for profit. We have not made that finding and
have sustained respondent’s adjustments with respect to the
Schedule F activity. Respondent’s determination of a section
6662 penalty is therefore sustained.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Last modified: May 25, 2011