- 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