- 18 -
At the times he received the distributions in question,
petitioner was ages 57 and 58, respectively. Although respondent
determined that petitioner had received some moneys on account of
a disability in 1995 and 1996, petitioner presented no evidence
that the IRA distributions in question were attributable to that
disability. In fact, petitioner presented no evidence that any
of the exceptions to the 10-percent additional tax listed above
apply. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination and
hold that petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax
in relation to IRA distributions totaling $37,500 and $29,500 in
1995 and 1996, respectively.
Issue 5. Whether Petitioner Is Liable for an Accuracy-Related
Penalty Pursuant to Section 6662(a) for Taxable Years 1995 and
1996
The last issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable
for an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a).
Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty of 20 percent of the portion of
the underpayment which is attributable to negligence or disregard
of rules or regulations. See sec. 6662(b)(1). Negligence is the
lack of due care or failure to do what a reasonable and
ordinarily prudent person would do under the circumstances. See
Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985). The term
"disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or intentional
disregard. Sec. 6662(c). No penalty shall be imposed if it is
shown that there was reasonable cause for such portion of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011