Estate of Paul Campana - Page 19




                                       - 18 -                                         
          time.  It is possible that petitioner could have recovered her              
          investment at the time of Mr. Alfano's advice.  If so, she might            
          have been in constructive or actual receipt of her investment and           
          the CNC distributions.  See Wright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.              
          1989-557.  Had petitioner recovered her investment, Mr. Alfano              
          may have advised taking a different return position.  Petitioner            
          failed to heed Mr. Alfano's advice, left him with the impression            
          that she had attempted and failed to have her investment                    
          refunded, and invested additional funds in the pyramid scheme.              
          She apparently made no attempt to find out any further                      
          information about her invested funds or CNC other than that it              
          had an office with a desk and a computer.                                   
               The Court finds that petitioner failed reasonably to attempt           
          to comply with the tax code and regulations.  Her actions                   
          evidence a lack of due care or the failure to do what a                     
          reasonable or ordinarily prudent person would do under the                  
          circumstances.  See Chamberlain v. Commissioner, supra.                     
                                     Conclusion                                       
               We hold that petitioner is not liable for the fraud                    
          penalties under section 6663(a) but is liable for the accuracy-             
          related penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence or                   
          intentional violation of rules or regulations for 1991 and 1992.            
          We hold that respondent's determination that the underpayment of            
          tax for the year 1994 is due to fraud is correct, and petitioner            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011