- 16 -
OPINION
We have decided many jojoba cases involving additions to tax
for negligence and substantial understatement of tax liability.11
We have found the taxpayers liable for additions to tax for
negligence in all of those cases; likewise, we have found the
taxpayers liable for the addition to tax for substantial
understatement of tax liability in all of those cases that have
presented that issue.
I. Section 6653(a)(1) and (2) Negligence
The first issue for decision is whether petitioners are
liable for additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to the underpayment of tax attributable to petitioner’s
investment in San Nicholas. Petitioners bear the burden of proof
to show that they are not liable for these additions to tax.12
11 See, e.g., Kellen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-19;
Lopez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-278; Christensen v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-185; Serfustini v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-183; Carmena v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-
177; Nilsen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-163; Ruggiero v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-162; Robnett v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2001-17; Harvey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-16; Hunt
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-15; Fawson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-195; Downs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-155;
Glassley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-206; Stankevich v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-458.
12 It must be acknowledged that respondent bears the burden
of proof to show that petitioners are liable for the increase in
the addition to tax under sec. 6653(a)(2). Rule 142(a); see
supra, p. 2, table, note 2. However, in the present case, the
increase is purely computational in nature, and respondent has
convincingly demonstrated the proper amount of the addition to
tax. Accordingly, our analysis proceeds on the basis that
(continued...)
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