- 18 -
Discussion
We have decided many jojoba cases involving additions to tax
for negligence and substantial understatement of tax liability.17
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 petitioner is 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. Petitioner has the burden of proof
to show that he is not liable for these additions to tax.18 See
17 See, e.g., Finazzo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-56;
Welch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-39; 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.
18 It must be acknowledged that respondent bears the burden
of proof to show that petitioner is liable for the increase in
the addition to tax under sec. 6653(a)(2). See supra, p. 2,
table, note 1; Rule 142(a). However, in the present case, the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011