- 17 -
at 311. Based on our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioner has failed to establish that he is
entitled to a theft-loss deduction under section 165.
We turn finally to respondent’s determination that peti-
tioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a). Section 6662(a) imposes an accuracy-related penalty
equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax resulting from,
inter alia, negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, see
sec. 6662(b)(1), or a substantial understatement of income tax,
see sec. 6662(b)(2). For purposes of section 6662(a), the term
"negligence" includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to
comply with the Code, and the term "disregard" includes any
careless, reckless, or intentional disregard. See sec. 6662(c).
Negligence has also been defined as a lack of due care or failure
to do what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances.
See 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). An under-
statement is equal to the excess of the amount of tax required to
be shown in the tax return over the amount of tax shown in the
tax return, see sec. 6662(d)(2)(A), and is substantial in the
9(...continued)
payer discovers the loss, and petitioner claims that he discov-
ered the 1995 purported embezzlement in the year 2000. See sec.
165(a), (e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011