- 8 - We hold that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalties determined in the notice of deficiency. Petitioners have failed to establish that any of the related underpayments were not due to their negligence or disregard of rules or regulations. As to the accuracy-related penalties alleged in answer, however, we hold for petitioners. Respondent has not met his burden of proof with respect to those amounts. E.g., Sproul v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-207. Whereas respondent in brief recognizes that he bears the burden as to those amounts, respondent concludes erroneously that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalties alleged in answer because they have failed to disprove their liability for such amounts. Respondent states: Petitioners underreported their income for 1993, 1994, and 1995. Though their returns were prepared by a tax service, petitioners did not present any evidence as to their return preparer’s qualifications or to show that the underreporting was due to any act of their returns preparer or reliance upon his advice. Moreover, they have introduced no evidence which could serve as a basis for the Court to find that there was reasonable cause for their underreporting. Accordingly, petitioners should be held liable for the accuracy-related penalty for 1994 [sic], 1994, and 1995, respectively. All arguments of the parties not discussed herein have been considered and rejected as meritless. Accordingly, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011