- 35 -
Leuhsler v. Commissioner, 963 F.2d 907, 910 (6th Cir. 1992),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-179; Antonides v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
686, 699 (1988), affd. 893 F.2d 656 (4th Cir. 1990).
We turn first to petitioners’ position with respect to
respondent’s determination under section 6662(a) and (b)(2). On
the record before us, we find that petitioners have failed to
establish that they adequately disclosed in petitioners’ joint
return or in any statement attached to that return the relevant
facts affecting the tax treatment of petitioners’ capital gain,
as required by section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I). For example, there
are no facts disclosed either in that return or in a statement
attached to that return regarding the foreclosure sale of the
Yantari, the amount realized on that sale, or petitioners’ basis
in the Yantari.
We further find on the instant record that petitioners have
failed to show that they had a reasonable basis for their failure
to report petitioners’ capital gain in petitioners’ joint return,
as required by section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II). As noted above, as
we understand their position, petitioners contend that they did
not know that the value of the Yantari when it was sold at the
foreclosure sale was $95,000. Apparently, petitioners maintain
that they believed that the value of the Yantari at that time was
less than $95,000, although they did not disclose in petitioners’
joint return, and they do not indicate on brief, what they
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011