-28-
We hold for respondent on this issue.
II. Section 6662--Negligence
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for a 20-
percent negligence addition to tax on the entire underpayment for
each year in issue.
Respondent contends that petitioner “failed to act
reasonably in claiming increasingly larger expenses and losses on
Schedule C from 1993-1995.” Respondent relies on Sacks v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-217, affd. 82 F.3d 918 (9th Cir.
1996).
Petitioner maintains that he had reasonable cause for his
actions--in particular that he was following advice from one of
respondent’s employees and from respondent’s Schedule C
instructions. Petitioner also maintains that he acted in good
faith, as is shown by the disclosures on his tax returns.
Petitioner relies on Osteen v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 356 (11th
Cir. 1995), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1993-519.
Neither side suggests, even by way of a fallback position,
that one part of the underpayment may be due to negligence and
the other part not due to negligence.
We agree with respondent’s conclusion.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011