- 8 -
taking into account the taxpayer’s experience, he was unaware of
the necessity for the election. Sec. 301.9100-3(b)(1)(iii),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. In this case, although petitioner was not
aware of the bonds until 2001, he did not act until he received
the notice of deficiency on December 15, 2003, almost 3 years
later. Petitioner is an accountant employed as a finance manager
who could reasonably be expected to know of the necessity for the
election. Consequently, petitioner would not have been entitled
to an extension to make the election under section 454(a). The
Court holds, therefore, that the interest on the redeemed bonds
constituted income to petitioner, as owner of the bonds, and
petitioner is not entitled to the election under section 454(a).
Respondent is sustained on this issue. Apkin v. Commissioner,
supra.
Respondent determined that petitioner’s Federal income tax
return for 2001 was not filed timely, and that he is liable for
the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). The parties
stipulated that petitioner’s 2001 return was mailed on April 17,
2002, and was received by the IRS on April 23, 2002. The
addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) is imposed where there
is failure to file a timely tax return, unless it is shown that
the failure to timely file is due to reasonable cause and not due
to willful neglect. Under section 6072(a), calendar year
taxpayers, such as petitioner, are required to file their income
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011