- 4 -
determine (either with specificity or by estimation) the amount
of those losses on the basis of the record at hand. Given the
fact that petitioner bears the burden of proof on this issue, we
sustain respondent’s determination with respect to it. See Mayer
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-295; Zielonka v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-81; see also Finesod v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-66.
As to the accuracy-related penalty for negligence, section
6662(a) and (b)(1) imposes a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty
on the portion of an underpayment that is due to negligence or
intentional disregard of rules or regulations. Negligence
includes a failure to attempt reasonably to comply with the Code.
Sec. 6662(c). Disregard includes a careless, reckless, or
intentional disregard. Id. An underpayment is not attributable
to negligence or disregard to the extent that the taxpayer shows
that the underpayment is due to the taxpayer’s reasonable cause
and good faith. Secs. 1.6662-3(a), 1.6664-4(a), Income Tax Regs.
Reasonable cause requires that the taxpayer exercise ordinary
business care and prudence as to the disputed item. United
States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985); see also Estate of Young v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 297, 317 (1998).
On the basis of the record, we sustain respondent’s
determination of the accuracy-related penalty. Petitioner has
failed to prove respondent’s determination wrong.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011