- 8 -
there was reasonable cause for the underpayment and that he or
she acted in good faith with respect to the underpayment. See
sec. 6664(c).
The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the negligence
penalty is inapplicable. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111 (1933); Gircsis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-244;
cf. sec. 7491(c), effective for court proceedings arising in
connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998.
We conclude that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-
related penalty. Of particular significance is the fact that
there is no persuasive evidence that petitioner ever properly
inquired whether his marital status allowed him to file as head
of household or whether he was entitled to claim an earned income
credit without filing a joint return. In other words, there is
no persuasive evidence that petitioner made a reasonable attempt
to comply with applicable law. Further, the fact that Mrs.
Chiosie may have refused to file a joint return because of
marital discord provides no justification for petitioner to claim
a filing status to which he is clearly not entitled.
Finally, petitioner contends that certain events that
occurred during the examination stage of this case justify his
reporting position. We disagree; such events are not material to
the issue whether petitioner made a reasonable attempt to comply
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011