James R. and Myrtice L. Peacock - Page 32

                                       - 32 -                                         
          businessperson, knew, or at least should have known, that the               
          manner in which he conducted the fishing activity was                       
          dramatically different from the manner in which he conducted his            
          automobile ventures.  Nor do we believe that petitioners can                
          escape the reach of the accuracy-related penalties by asserting             
          baldly that they relied reasonably upon their accountant.                   
          Petitioners never called their accountant to testify as to the              
          preparation of any of the returns.  Petitioners also never                  
          attempted to meet any of the requirements of the Ellwest test.              
          We sustain respondent’s determination of the accuracy-related               
          penalties under section 6662(a).                                            
               As to respondent’s determination under section 6651(a),                
          petitioners are liable for that addition to tax unless they prove           
          that their failure to file the 1997 Federal income tax return               
          timely was:  (1) Due to reasonable cause and (2) not due to                 
          willful neglect.  Sec. 6651(a)(1); Rule 142(a)(1); United States            
          v. Boyle, supra at 245.  A failure to file timely a Federal                 
          income tax return is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer                
          exercised ordinary business care and prudence and, nevertheless,            
          was unable to file his or her return within the prescribed time.            
          Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Willful neglect              
          means a conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference.            
          United States v. Boyle, supra at 245.                                       

Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011