- 7 -
The main thrust of petitioner’s position in this case is
that the tax laws do not require her to pay taxes on the income
that she received. While we believe that petitioner’s position
is objectively unreasonable, the sparse evidence in the record
before us does not clearly and convincingly negate petitioner’s
implicit claim that she was acting on her good faith
understanding of the law. Of course, we may question whether
petitioner’s purported misunderstanding of the law was the
product of good faith. However, suspicions, no matter how
strong, are not a substitute for evidence.3 See id. at 210.
Respondent bears the burden of proving fraudulent intent by clear
and convincing evidence. See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b).
Respondent has not done so. We therefore hold that petitioner is
not liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(f).4
Petitioner bears the burden of proof regarding the section
6654(a) additions to tax for failure to pay estimated tax.
Petitioner offered no evidence regarding the section 6654(a)
3The record before us contains no evidence of petitioner’s
business experience, educational background, prior history of
filing income tax returns, or dealings with the Internal Revenue
Service, prior to 1992.
4In respondent’s brief, he requests that we, on our own
motion, impose an additional penalty under sec. 6673. Given the
fact that petitioner has prevailed on the sec. 6651(f) issue, we
decline respondent’s invitation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011