- 29 -
tax benefits. Petitioner also contends that respondent’s
determination of negligence is not entitled to a presumption of
correctness in this case and that petitioner, therefore, should
not bear the burden of proof on the issue of negligence.
1. Petitioner’s Burden of Proof Argument
Petitioner contends that because the inquiry into an
individual’s negligence is highly individualized and turns on the
surrounding circumstances, respondent’s determination should not
be entitled to a presumption of correctness “if he has not made
any inquiry into those individualized circumstances before
asserting the penalty”. Petitioner also contends that respondent
should bear the burden of proof on the issue. Petitioner
concedes, however, that section 7491(c) does not apply to this
case and that his position is not supported by caselaw.
It is well established that a determination of negligence by
the Commissioner is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
that the burden is on the taxpayer to establish that the
Commissioner’s determination is incorrect. See, e.g., Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. at 115; Luman v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. at 860-861; Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C.
at 791-792; Berry v. Commissioner, supra; Barlow v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-339; Kowalchuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
153; Ferraro v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner concedes that
his arguments are not supported by caselaw, and he has failed to
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011