- 21 -
claim that they are not liable for 2001 for the accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a) because they relied on the advice
of a professional.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners did not
have a reasonable basis in claiming the $99,980 exclusion of 2001
wages in their 2001 joint return. On that record, we further
find that petitioners’ return position in claiming the $99,980
exclusion of 2001 wages was attributable to negligence. See Van
Camp & Bennion v. United States, 251 F.3d at 866.
On the record before us, we further find that petitioners
have failed to carry their burden of establishing that there was
reasonable cause for, and that they acted in good faith with
respect to, any portion of the underpayment for petitioners’
taxable year 2001. See sec. 6664(c)(1); sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1),
Income Tax Regs. On that record, we find that petitioners have
failed to carry their burden of showing any circumstances that
would enable us to find that they had reasonable cause for, and
acted in good faith in, claiming the $99,980 exclusion of 2001
wages in their 2001 joint return.16
16For example, petitioners have failed to show that, after
we issued Specking v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 95 (2001), they
consulted a professional who advised them to claim the $99,980
exclusion of 2001 wages in their 2001 joint return. Indeed,
petitioners have failed to show that, after we issued Specking,
they even made any efforts to consult a professional about
whether to make such a claim. See Zmuda v. Commissioner, 731
F.2d 1417, 1422-1423 (9th Cir. 1984), affg. 79 T.C. 714 (1982).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011