- 23 -
Petitioner’s briefs contained no argument with respect to the
additions to tax.
Because the predicate facts for the late-filing additions
were stipulated, and petitioner’s attorney repeatedly argued at
the trial that petitioner relied on its accountant in tax filing
matters, we surmise that petitioner challenges the additions on
the grounds that it had “reasonable cause” and not “willful
neglect” for the failure to file on time due to its reliance on
its accountant. Petitioner bears the burden of proof to show
“reasonable cause” and not “willful neglect” where the additions
to tax were claimed in the notice of deficiency, as they were
here. Sanderling, Inc. v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 743, 757
(1976), revd. in part on other grounds 571 F.2d 174 (3d Cir.
1978); sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin Regs.;6 Rule
142(a); see Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
Petitioner has offered no evidence to meet its burden of
proof. The Supreme Court made it clear in United States v.
Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 249-250 (1985), that a taxpayer cannot
6In 1998, Congress enacted sec. 7491(c), which places the
burden of production on the Commissioner in connection with any
determination of penalties or additions to tax. Sec. 7491(c)
applies only to court proceedings arising in connection with
examinations commenced after July 22, 1998. Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206,
sec. 3001, 112 Stat. 726. The notice of deficiency in this case
was issued on Feb. 26, 1997, which conclusively establishes that
the examination was commenced before July 22, 1998. Because it
is clear that sec. 7491(c) does not apply here, we need not
determine whether respondent has met the burden of production.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011