- 13 -
Petitioner has the burden of proving that he is not liable
for the addition to tax. Addington v. Commissioner, supra at 58;
Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d 402, 407 (2d Cir. 1994), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-480; Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791-792
(1972). See generally Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933).4
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the due
care that a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would
exercise under the circumstances. Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
934, 947 (1985). The pertinent question is whether a particular
taxpayer’s actions are reasonable in light of the taxpayer’s
experience, the nature of the investment, and the taxpayer’s
actions in connection with the transaction. Henry Schwartz Corp.
v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 728, 740 (1973). The determination of
negligence is highly factual. “When considering the negligence
addition, we evaluate the particular facts of each case, judging
the relative sophistication of the taxpayers as well as the
manner in which the taxpayers approached their investment.”
Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-363.
Petitioner accepts the finding of the Court in Provizer v.
Commissioner, supra, that the Sentinel EPE Recyclers had a
4 Cf. sec. 7491(c), effective for court proceedings arising
in connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998.
Petitioner does not contend that his examination commenced after
July 22, 1998, or that sec. 7491 is applicable to his case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011