Homer L. Richardson - Page 60

                                       - 60 -                                         
          (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser’s             
          judgment.”  Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115               
          T.C. 43, 99 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); see also,            
          e.g.,  Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 425               
          F.3d 1203, 1212 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting verbatim and with            
          approval the above three-prong test), affg. 121 T.C. 89 (2003);             
          Westbrook v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 881 (5th Cir. 1995),                
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-634; Cramer v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 225,            
          251 (1993), affd. 64 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1995); Ma-Tran Corp. v.            
          Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173 (1978); Pessin v. Commissioner, 59           
          T.C. 473, 489 (1972); Ellwest Stereo Theatres v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1995-610.                                                        
               As regards burden of proof, section 7491(c) provides that              
          “the Secretary shall have the burden of production in any court             
          proceeding with respect to the liability of any individual for              
          any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount imposed by               
          this title.”  The Commissioner satisfies this burden of                     
          production by “[coming] forward with sufficient evidence                    
          indicating that it is appropriate to impose the relevant penalty”           
          but “need not introduce evidence regarding reasonable cause,                
          substantial authority, or similar provisions.”  Higbee v.                   
          Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).  Rather, “it is the                 
          taxpayer’s responsibility to raise those issues.”  Id.                      
               The notice of deficiency issued to Mr. Richardson asserted             
          applicability of the section 6662(a) penalty on account of                  




Page:  Previous  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011