Perry Funeral Home, Inc. - Page 26

                                       - 26 -                                         
          Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).  Rather, “it is the                 
          taxpayer’s responsibility to raise those issues.”  Id.                      
               The notice of deficiency issued to petitioner determined               
          applicability of the section 6662(a) penalty for 1996 on account            
          of both negligence and/or substantial understatement.7  To the              
          extent that we have ruled in petitioner’s favor on the accounting           
          issue presented for decision, there can be no underpayment or               
          corresponding penalty attributable thereto.                                 
               However, petitioner also conceded several other adjustments            
          for 1996.8  The record is entirely devoid of any information                
          regarding the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s position on            
          these items, which include amounts claimed for beginning                    
          inventory, cost of goods sold, legal and professional fees, and             
          depreciation.  To the extent that these concessions result in an            
          underpayment, we conclude that respondent has satisfied his                 
          burden under section 7491(c) of production of sufficient                    
          evidence.  At minimum, nothing suggests that these errors were              
          other than negligent.  We also note that the threshold                      


               7 The notice also referenced substantial valuation                     
          misstatement as an additional alternative ground, see sec.                  
          6662(b)(3), but since valuation was not a focus of this case, we            
          disregard the apparent boilerplate reference.                               
               8 We note that the phrasing of and figures recited in the              
          parties’ stipulations concerning settled issues raise some                  
          ambiguity regarding the precise nature of the settlement reached.           
          However, it is clear that petitioner made multiple concessions              
          and that the parties do not intend for the Court to address the             
          substantive matters covered by these stipulations.                          




Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011