- 8 -
forward with evidence that a penalty is appropriate, respondent
generally is regarded as having satisfied his burden of
production, and the taxpayer continues to have the burden of
proof with regard to whether a penalty should be imposed. See H.
Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 241 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 747, 995.
The Form 1099-R mailed by Dreyfus to petitioner clearly
reflected that the entire $60,000 distribution constituted the
“taxable amount” of the distribution and that no Federal income
tax was withheld from the distribution. Under the regulations,
negligence is indicated where a taxpayer fails to include on her
tax return an amount shown as taxable income on an information
return. Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs.
Despite petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony that she never
actually received the Form 1099-R mailed by Dreyfus to
petitioner, petitioner does not deny receiving an annual
statement that characterized the $60,000 distribution as a
“Premature Distribution”, and petitioner acknowledges that she
completed and signed the distribution request form, which
reflected a specific request not to apply income tax withholding
to the distribution.
The evidence does not establish that petitioner had a
reasonable basis for not reporting the $60,000 distribution on
her 1999 Federal income tax return. We conclude that petitioner
is liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011