Arthur C. Brincat - Page 12




                                        - 12 -                                         
          Whether Edgar Is Liable for the Accuracy-Related Penalty Under               
          Section 6662(a)                                                              
               Respondent determined that a 20-percent penalty was                     
          applicable to Edgar because of negligence, disregard of rules or             
          regulations, and substantial understatement of income tax.  An               
          understatement is “substantial” if it exceeds the greater of 10              
          percent of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000.             
          Sec. 6662(d)(1).  Edgar’s understatement for 1989 exceeds the                
          threshold for application of section 6662.                                   
               An accuracy-related penalty is imposed on a taxpayer if any             
          portion of an underpayment of tax is attributable to either                  
          negligence or disregard of rules or regulations or to any                    
          substantial understatement of income tax.  See sec. 6662(a) and              
          (b)(1) and (2).  The term “negligence” includes any failure to               
          make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the               
          Internal Revenue Code, and the term “disregard” includes any                 
          careless, reckless, or intentional disregard.  Sec. 6662(c).  The            
          accuracy-related penalty is not to be imposed if it is shown that            
          there was reasonable cause for the underpayment and that the                 
          taxpayer acted in good faith.  See sec. 6664(c)(1).  Petitioners             
          have the burden of showing that they are not liable for the                  
          accuracy-related penalty.  See Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111              
          (1933).                                                                      
               In support of his determination, respondent contends that               
          Edgar failed to report the $135,550 he received in connection                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011