Ralph E. Wesinger, Jr. and Catherine R. Wesinger - Page 33




                                       - 33 -                                         
          accuracy-related penalty in the amount of 20 percent of any                 
          underpayment that is attributable to negligence or disregard of             
          rules or regulations.  “Negligence” is defined in section 6662(c)           
          as “any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the             
          provisions of this title”, and “disregard” as “any careless,                
          reckless, or intentional disregard.”  Section 1.6662-3(b)(1),               
          Income Tax Regs., further explains: “Negligence is strongly                 
          indicated where-- * * * (ii) A taxpayer fails to make a                     
          reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness of a deduction,             
          credit or exclusion on a return which would seem to a reasonable            
          and prudent person to be ‘too good to be true’ under the                    
          circumstances”.  Case law similarly states that negligence is               
          “the failure to exercise the due care of a reasonable and                   
          ordinarily prudent person under like circumstances.”  Sanders v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-208; see also Neely v.                        
          Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985).   The taxpayer bears the             
          burden of establishing that he or she was not negligent, had                
          reasonable cause for the underpayment, and acted in good faith.             
          See sec. 6664(c)(1); Neely v. Commissioner, supra at 947; Sanders           
          v. Commissioner, supra.                                                     
               Here, petitioners do not aver any specific facts to rebut              
          respondent’s finding of negligence other than that the amounts              
          reported were uncontested.  This assertion fails to meet                    
          petitioners’ burden of showing that the treatment of these                  






Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011