- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011