- 10 -
Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to
the imposition of the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax here
under consideration. Sec. 7491(c).
Because the amended return was filed after separate returns,
the date the amended return is deemed to have been filed is the
date that petitioner’s return was filed, that is February 22,
2000, or thereabouts, sec. 6013(b)(3)(A)(i), which date is more
than 4 months after the due date of the return. See sec.
6072(a).
Petitioners agree that the return was not timely. They
argue against the imposition of the addition to tax, however,
upon several grounds. In a Form 843, Claim for Refund and
Request for Abatement, petitioners suggest that the return was
filed late as “a result of erroneous advice from the IRS.”
Attached to that form is a two-page typed statement in which
petitioners request that the addition to tax be waived because
petitioner’s accountant had a lengthy illness and that “no one in
the [accounting firm] was familiar with [his] records”.4
Nothing in the record identifies what, if any, “erroneous
advice” petitioners might have received from respondent, and we
give that explanation no further consideration. Otherwise,
4 We note that petitioner made no mention in this letter
that the accounting firm had misplaced or lost his business
records.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011