- 6 -
accuracy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(a) for
1992 and 1993. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed each of these holdings. The rationale that we set forth
in the Prindle Intl. Mktg., UBO case to support our holdings
applies equally to this case. Because petitioners have presented
no persuasive reason as to why we should not apply that rationale
here, we do so to sustain respondent’s determination as to the
commission income from Oxyfresh. We also sustain each of
respondent’s determinations as to the other income items. We
have found as a fact that one or both of petitioners received
each of those items of income, and petitioners have failed to
prove that any of the related determinations are incorrect.4
As to respondent’s determinations under section 6651,
petitioners are liable for those additions to tax unless they
prove that their failure to file Federal income tax returns
timely was: (1) Due to reasonable cause and (2) not due to
willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a)(1); Rule 142(a); United States v.
Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). A failure to file timely a
Federal income tax return is due to reasonable cause if the
taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence, and,
nevertheless, was unable to file his or her return within the
prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
4 We note, however, that the record reveals that the Rule
155 computation must reflect the fact that the interest income of
$138 was received by petitioners jointly.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011