Vanessa K. Bernardo - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         
          is not entitled to claim head of household filing status for that           
          year.  See Zampini v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-395.                    
          V.  Section 6662(a) Penalty                                                 
               Section 6662(a) provides for a penalty equal to 20 percent             
          of the underpayment in tax attributable to, among other things,             
          negligence or disregard of rules or regulations (without                    
          distinction, negligence).  See sec. 6662(b)(1).  The penalty for            
          negligence will not apply to an underpayment in tax to the extent           
          that the taxpayer can show both reasonable cause and that the               
          taxpayer acted in good faith.  See sec. 6664(c)(1).  Negligence             
          “includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with           
          the provisions of the internal revenue laws or to exercise                  
          ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax return.”           
          Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.  It “also includes any                
          failure by the taxpayer to keep adequate books and records or to            
          substantiate items properly.”  Id.                                          
               Respondent bears the burden of producing evidence warranting           
          imposition of the section 6662(a) penalty.  See sec. 7491(c).               
               Although we have found that petitioner is not entitled to a            
          Schedule A deduction for unreimbursed employee business expenses,           
          a deduction for certain substantiated expenditures listed on                
          Schedule C, or head of household filing status, in each case the            
          issue involved close questions of fact.  As a result, we find               
          that those return positions did not constitute negligence within            






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