- 18 -
tape 2. As noted supra, the purpose of Mr. Kelson’s
reconciliations was to assure that, in determining net sales, no
bar sales were duplicated on the dining room cash register tapes.
Ms. Groom clearly demonstrated that no double-ups were included
in her summaries (Exhibits 3-J through 13-J) in which she
determined petitioner’s income for the taxable year ended May 31,
1995.
Petitioner did not call Mr. Kelson as a witness. He was
petitioner’s accountant and bookkeeper who prepared the daily
cash register tape 2 (the bar) reconciliation that assured there
would be no double-ups on cash register tape 1 (the dining room).
Under Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158,
1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947), we infer that
Mr. Kelson’s testimony, if offered at trial, would have clearly
disproved petitioner’s “double-ups” theory.
Petitioner’s “double-ups” theory is patently bogus, and we
reject it.
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an
accuracy-related penalty of $6,089.40 for failure to report
income in the amount of $120,371.
Section 6662(a) imposes a 20-percent penalty on the portion
of an underpayment attributable to any one of various factors,
one of which is negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.
Sec. 6662(b)(1). “Negligence” includes any failure to make a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011