- 10 - shown that this failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Reasonable cause may exist if a taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nonetheless unable to file the return within the date prescribed by law. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Willful neglect means a “conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference.” United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to this addition to tax. Sec. 7491(c). In order to meet this burden of production, respondent must produce sufficient evidence establishing that it is appropriate to impose this addition to tax. Once respondent has done so, the burden of proof is upon petitioner, Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 449 (2001), except for the increased portion of the addition to tax asserted by respondent in the answer. Respondent bears the burden of proof as to that portion of the addition to tax. Rule 142(a)(1). Petitioner’s burden of proof requires that he prove that his failure to file a timely 1998 tax return was due to reasonable cause and was not due to willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a)(1); United States v. Boyle, supra at 245. Respondent’s burden of proof requires that he prove the contrary; i.e., that petitioner’s failure to file timely was not due to reasonable cause or was due to willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a)(1); United States v. Boyle, supra at 245; Bruner Woolen Co. v. Commissioner,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011